Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The influence of probabilities on the response mode bias in utility elicitation

  • Published:
Theory and Decision Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The response mode bias, in which subjects exhibit different risk attitudes when assessing certainty equivalents versus indifference probabilities, is a well-known phenomenon in the assessment of utility functions. In this empirical study, we develop and apply a cardinal measure of risk attitudes to analyze not only the existence, but also the strength of this phenomenon. Since probability levels involved in decision problems are already known to have a strong impact on behavior, we use this approach to study the impact of probabilities on the extent of the response mode bias. We find that the direction in which probabilities influence measured risk aversion is the opposite in the certainty equivalence (CE) method versus in the probability equivalence (PE) method. Utilizing the CE elicitation approach leads to an increase of risk seeking for gambles involving high probabilities. For the PE method, subjects tend to behave risk averse with gambles of high probabilities. This behavior is reversed in the gain domain. This “tailwhip” effect is consistently replicated in several experiments, involving both loss and gain domains of lotteries.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abdellaoui M. (2000) Parameter-free elicitation of utility and probability weighting functions. Management Science 46(11): 1497–1512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abdellaoui M., Vossmann F., Weber M. (2005) Choice-based elicitation and decomposition of decision weights for gains and losses under uncertainty. Management Science 51(9): 1384–1399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow K. J. (1971) Essays in the theory of risk-bearing. Markham, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Baucells M., Rata C. (2006) A survey study of factors influencing risk-taking behavior in real-world decisions under uncertainty. Decision Analysis 3(3): 163–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker G. M., DeGroot M. H., Marschak J. (1964) Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behavioral Science 9(3): 226–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blavatskyy P. (2006) Error propagation in the elicitation of utility and probability weighting functions. Theory and Decision 60(1): 315–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bleichrodt H., Abellan-Perpiñan J. M., Pinto-Prades J. L., Mendez-Martinez I. (2007) Resolving inconsistencies in utility measurement under risk: Tests of generalizations of expected utility. Management Science 53(3): 469–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bleichrodt H., Pinto J. L. (2000) A parameter-free elicitation of the probability weighting function in medical decision analysis. Management Science 46(11): 1485–1496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bleichrodt H., Pinto J. L., Wakker P. P. (2001) Making descriptive use of the prospect theory to improve the prescriptive use of expected utility theory. Management Science 47(11): 1498–1514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brachinger H. W., Weber M. (1997) Risk as a primitive: A survey of measures of perceived risk. OR Spektrum 19(4): 235–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calder B. J., Phillips L. W., Tybout A. M. (1981) Designing research for application. Journal of Consumer Research 8(2): 197–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camerer C. (1992) Recent tests of generalizations of expected utility theory. In: Edwards W. (eds) Utility: Theories, measurement and applications. Kluwer, Boston, pp 207–251

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen M., Jaffray J.-M., Said T. (1987) Experimental comparison of individual behavior under risk and under uncertainty for gains and for losses. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 39(1): 1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conlisk J. (1989) Three variants on the Allais example. American Economic Review 79(3): 392–407

    Google Scholar 

  • Delquié P. (1993) Inconsistent trade-offs between attributes: New evidence in preference assessment biases. Management Science 39(11): 1382–1395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delquié P. (1997) “Bi-Matching”: A new preference assessment method to reduce compatibility effects. Management Science 43(5): 640–658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farquhar P. H. (1984) Utility assessment methods. Management Science 30(11): 1283–1300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer G. W., Hawkins S. A. (1993) Strategy compatibility, scale compatibility, and the prominence effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 19(3): 580–597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn P. C., Kochenberger G. A. (1979) Two-piece von Neumann–Morgenstern utility functions. Decision Sciences 10(4): 503–518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox C. R., Rogers B. A., Tversky A. (1996) Option traders exhibit subadditive decision weights. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 13(1): 5–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez R., Wu G. (1999) Nonlinear decision weights in choice under uncertainty. Management Science 45(1): 74–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harless D. W., Camerer C. C. (1994) The predictive utility of generalized expected utility theories. Econometrica 62(6): 1251–1289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hershey J. C., Kunreuther H. C., Schoemaker P. J. H. (1982) Sources of bias in assessment procedures for utility functions. Management Science 8(8): 936–954

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hershey J. C., Schoemaker P. J. H. (1985) Probability versus certainty equivalence methods in utility measurement: Are they equivalent?. Management Science 31(10): 1213–1231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson E. J., Schkade D. A. (1989) Bias in utility assessments: Further evidence and explanations. Management Science 35(4): 406–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D., Tversky A. (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(1): 263–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D., Tversky A. (1984) Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist 39(4): 341–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karmarkar U. S. (1978) Subjectively weighted utility: A descriptive extension of the expected utility model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 21(1): 61–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Lattimore P. K., Baker J. R., Witte A. D. (1992) The influence of probability on risky choice: A parametric examination. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 17: 377–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loubergé H., Outreville J. F. (2001) Risk taking in the domain of losses: Experiments in several countries. Journal of Risk Research 4(3): 227–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maule J., Villejoubert G. (2007) What lies beneath: Reframing framing effects. Thinking & Reasoning 13(1): 25–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCord M., de Neufville R. (1984) Utility dependence on probability: An empirical demonstration. Large Scale Systems 6: 91–103

    Google Scholar 

  • McCord M., de Neufville R. (1986) “Lottery equivalents”: Reduction of the certainty effect problem in utility assessment. Management Science 32(1): 56–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver A. (2003) The internal consistency of the standard gamble: Tests after adjusting for prospect theory. Journal of Health Economics 22(4): 659–674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennings J. M. E., Smidts A. (2000) Assessing the construct validity of risk attitude. Management Science 46(10): 1337–1348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennings J. M. E., Smidts A. (2003) The shape of utility functions and organizational behavior. Management Science 49(9): 1251–1263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinto-Prades J. L., Abellán-Perpiñán J. M. (2005) Measuring the health of populations: The veil of ignorance approach. Health Economics 14(1): 69–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pratt J. W. (1964) Risk aversion in the small and in the large. Econometrica 32(1/2): 122–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoemaker P. J. H. (1982) The expected utility model: Its variants, purposes, evidence and limitations. Journal of Economic Literature 20(2): 529–563

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoemaker P. J. H. (1990) Are risk-attitudes related across domains and response modes?. Management Science 36(12): 1451–1463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoemaker P. J. H., Hershey J. C. (1992) Utility measurement: Signal, noise, and bias. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 52(3): 397–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P. (1995) The construction of preference. American Psychologist 50(5): 364–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith J. E., von Winterfeldt D. (2004) Decision analysis in management science. Management Science 50(5): 561–574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starmer C. (2000) Developments in non-expected utility theory: The hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk. Journal of Economic Literature 38(2): 332–382

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A. (1969) Intransitivity of preferences. Psychological Review 76(1): 31–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A., Fox C. R. (1995) Weighing risk and uncertainty. Psychological Review 102(2): 269–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A., Kahneman D. (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157): 1124–1131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A., Kahneman D. (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211(4481): 453–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A., Kahneman D. (1991) Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 106(4): 1039–1061

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A., Kahneman D. (1992) Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5(4): 297–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A., Sattath S., Slovic P. (1988) Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psychological Review 95: 371–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A., Thaler R. H. (1990) Anomalies: Preference reversals. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 4(2): 201–211

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A., Wakker P. (1995) Risk attitudes and decision weights. Econometrica 63(6): 1255–1280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vetschera R. (2007) Preference structures and negotiator behavior in electronic negotiations. Decision Support Systems 44(1): 135–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Neumann J., Morgenstern O. (1944) Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • von Winterfeldt D., Edwards W. (1986) Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Wakker P., Deneffe D. (1996) Eliciting von Neumann–Morgenstern utilities when probabilities are distorted or unknown. Management Science 42(8): 1131–1150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu G., Gonzalez R. (1996) Curvature of the probability weighting function. Management Science 42(12): 1676–1690

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IMC University of Applied Sciences Krems, Piaristengasse 1, 3500, Krems, Austria

    Christopher Schwand

  2. Department of Business Administration, University of Vienna, Bruenner Str. 72, 1210, Vienna, Austria

    Rudolf Vetschera & Lea M. Wakolbinger

Authors
  1. Christopher Schwand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rudolf Vetschera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lea M. Wakolbinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher Schwand.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schwand, C., Vetschera, R. & Wakolbinger, L.M. The influence of probabilities on the response mode bias in utility elicitation. Theory Decis 69, 395–416 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-010-9193-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-010-9193-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation