IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jesaex/v10y2024i2d10.1007_s40881-024-00162-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Salience or event-splitting? An experimental investigation of correlation sensitivity in risk-taking

Author

Listed:
  • Moritz Loewenfeld

    (Toulouse School of Economics, University Toulouse Capitole)

  • Jiakun Zheng

    (Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS, AMSE, Centrale Marseille)

Abstract

Salience theory relies on the assumption that not only the marginal distribution of lotteries, but also the correlation of payoffs across states impacts choices. Recent experimental studies on salience theory seem to provide evidence in favor of such correlation effects. However, these studies fail to control for event-splitting effects (ESE). In this paper, we seek to disentangle the role of correlation and event-splitting in two settings: (1) the common consequence Allais paradox as studied by Bordalo et al. (Q J Econ 127:1243–1285, 2012), Frydman and Mormann (The role of salience in choice under risk: An experimental investigation. Working Paper, 2018), and Bruhin et al. (J Risk Uncertain 65:139–184, 2022); (2) choices between Mao pairs as studied by Dertwinkel-Kalt and Köster (J Eur Econ Assoc 18:2057–2107, 2020). In both settings, we find evidence suggesting that recent findings supporting correlation effects are largely driven by ESE. Once controlling for ESE, we find no consistent evidence for correlation effects. Our results thus shed doubt on the validity of salience theory in describing risky behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • Moritz Loewenfeld & Jiakun Zheng, 2024. "Salience or event-splitting? An experimental investigation of correlation sensitivity in risk-taking," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 346-366, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jesaex:v:10:y:2024:i:2:d:10.1007_s40881-024-00162-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s40881-024-00162-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40881-024-00162-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40881-024-00162-w?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 1982. "Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice under Uncertainty," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(368), pages 805-824, December.
    2. Herweg, Fabian & Müller, Daniel, 2021. "A comparison of regret theory and salience theory for decisions under risk," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    3. Jonathan W. Leland & Mark Schneider & Nathaniel T. Wilcox, 2019. "Minimal Frames and Transparent Frames for Risk, Time, and Uncertainty," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(9), pages 4318-4335, September.
    4. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2012. "Salience Theory of Choice Under Risk," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 127(3), pages 1243-1285.
    5. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    6. Ostermair, Christoph, 2022. "An experimental investigation of the Allais paradox with subjective probabilities and correlated outcomes," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    7. Daniel L. Chen & Martin Schonger & Chris Wickens, 2016. "oTree - An open-source platform for laboratory, online, and field experiments," Post-Print hal-04315125, HAL.
    8. Markus Dertwinkel-Kalt & Mats Köster, 2020. "Salience and Skewness Preferences [Risk-neutral Firms can Extract Unbounded Profits from Consumers with Prospect Theory Preferences]," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 18(5), pages 2057-2107.
    9. Chen, Daniel L. & Schonger, Martin & Wickens, Chris, 2016. "oTree—An open-source platform for laboratory, online, and field experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 88-97.
    10. Starmer, Chris & Sugden, Robert, 1993. "Testing for Juxtaposition and Event-Splitting Effects," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 235-254, June.
    11. Giacomo Lanzani, 2022. "Correlation Made Simple: Applications to Salience and Regret Theory [“Regret in Decision Making under Uncertainty,”]," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 137(2), pages 959-987.
    12. Adrian Bruhin & Maha Manai & Luís Santos-Pinto, 2022. "Risk and rationality: The relative importance of probability weighting and choice set dependence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 65(2), pages 139-184, October.
    13. Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 1987. "Some implications of a more general form of regret theory," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 270-287, April.
    14. Han Bleichrodt & Alessandra Cillo & Enrico Diecidue, 2010. "A Quantitative Measurement of Regret Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(1), pages 161-175, January.
    15. David E. Bell, 1982. "Regret in Decision Making under Uncertainty," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(5), pages 961-981, October.
    16. Adrian Bruhin & Helga Fehr-Duda & Thomas Epper, 2010. "Risk and Rationality: Uncovering Heterogeneity in Probability Distortion," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 78(4), pages 1375-1412, July.
    17. Königsheim, C. & Lukas, M. & Nöth, M., 2019. "Salience theory: Calibration and heterogeneity in probability distortion," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 477-495.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Adrian Bruhin & Maha Manai & Luís Santos-Pinto, 2022. "Risk and rationality: The relative importance of probability weighting and choice set dependence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 65(2), pages 139-184, October.
    2. Ostermair, Christoph, 2022. "An experimental investigation of the Allais paradox with subjective probabilities and correlated outcomes," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    3. Herweg, Fabian & Müller, Daniel, 2021. "A comparison of regret theory and salience theory for decisions under risk," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    4. Han Bleichrodt & Peter P. Wakker, 2015. "Regret Theory: A Bold Alternative to the Alternatives," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 0(583), pages 493-532, March.
    5. Dertwinkel-Kalt, Markus & Kasinger, Johannes & Schneider, Dmitrij, 2024. "Skewness preferences: Evidence from online poker," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 460-484.
    6. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Alessandra Cillo, 2015. "A Tailor-Made Test of Intransitive Choice," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 63(1), pages 198-211, February.
    7. Markus Dertwinkel-Kalt & Johannes Kasinger & Dmitrij Schneider, 2024. "Skewness Preferences: Evidence from Online Poker," CESifo Working Paper Series 10977, CESifo.
    8. Jeeva Somasundaram & Enrico Diecidue, 2017. "Regret theory and risk attitudes," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 55(2), pages 147-175, December.
    9. Andersson, Henrik & Scholtz, Henrik & Zheng, Jiakun, 2023. "Measuring regret theory in the health and financial domain," TSE Working Papers 23-1449, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    10. Wang, Di, 2021. "Attention-driven probability weighting," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    11. Markus Dertwinkel-Kalt & Mats Köster, 2020. "Salience and Skewness Preferences [Risk-neutral Firms can Extract Unbounded Profits from Consumers with Prospect Theory Preferences]," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 18(5), pages 2057-2107.
    12. Enrico Diecidue & Haim Levy & Moshe Levy, 2020. "Probability Dominance," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 102(5), pages 1006-1020, December.
    13. Königsheim, C. & Lukas, M. & Nöth, M., 2019. "Salience theory: Calibration and heterogeneity in probability distortion," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 477-495.
    14. Jonathan W. Leland, 1998. "Similarity Judgments in Choice Under Uncertainty: A Reinterpretation of the Predictions of Regret Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(5), pages 659-672, May.
    15. Zhuo Chen & Russell Golman & Jason Somerville, 2024. "Menu-dependent risk attitudes: Theory and evidence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 77-105, February.
    16. Andrea C. Hupman & Jay Simon, 2023. "The Legacy of Peter Fishburn: Foundational Work and Lasting Impact," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 1-15, March.
    17. Zhuzhu Zhou, 2024. "Ranking blame," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 78(2), pages 403-441, September.
    18. Jonathan W. Leland & Mark Schneider & Nathaniel T. Wilcox, 2019. "Minimal Frames and Transparent Frames for Risk, Time, and Uncertainty," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(9), pages 4318-4335, September.
    19. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Alexander Ritschel, 2022. "Attention and salience in preference reversals," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(3), pages 1024-1051, June.
    20. Fang Liu, 2021. "Regret theory under fear of the unknown," Papers 2108.01825, arXiv.org.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Salience; Event-splitting; Probability weighting; Concordance; Experiment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:jesaex:v:10:y:2024:i:2:d:10.1007_s40881-024-00162-w. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.