Multi-Outcome Lotteries: Prospect Theory vs. Relative Utility

Kontek, Krzysztof (2010): Multi-Outcome Lotteries: Prospect Theory vs. Relative Utility.

Abstract

This paper discusses two approaches for the analysis of multi-outcome lotteries. The first uses Cumulative Prospect Theory. The second is the Relative Utility Function, which strongly resembles the utility function hypothesized by Markowitz (1952). It is shown that the relative utility model follows Expected Utility Theory with a transformed outcome domain. An illustrative example demonstrates that not only it is a simpler model, but it also provides more sound predictions regarding certainty equivalents of multi-outcome lotteries. The paper discusses estimation procedures for both models. It is noted that Cumulative Prospect Theory has been derived using two-outcome lotteries only, and it is hard to find any evidence in the literature of its parameters ever having been estimated by using lotteries with more than two outcomes. Least squares (mean) and quantile (including median) regression estimations are presented for the relative utility model. It turns out that the estimations for two- and three-outcome lotteries are essentially the same. This confirms the correctness of the model and vindicates the homogeneity of responses given by subjects. An additional advantage of the relative utility model is that it allows multi-outcome lotteries, together with the estimation results, to be presented on a single graph. This is not possible using Cumulative Prospect Theory.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Multi-Prize Lotteries, Lottery / Prospect Valuation, Markowitz Hypothesis, Prospect / Cumulative Prospect Theory, Aspiration / Relative Utility Function.
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C1 - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General > C13 - Estimation: General; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C5 - Econometric Modeling > C51 - Model Construction and Estimation; D - Microeconomics > D0 - General > D03 - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles; D - Microeconomics > D8 - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty > D81 - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C2 - Single Equation Models ; Single Variables > C21 - Cross-Sectional Models ; Spatial Models ; Treatment Effect Models ; Quantile Regressions; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C9 - Design of Experiments > C91 - Laboratory, Individual Behavior; D - Microeconomics > D8 - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty > D87 - Neuroeconomics

References

1. Cameron, A. C., Trivedi, P. K., (2005). Microeconometrics. Methods and Applications, Cambridge University Press.

2. Edwards W., (1961). Behavioral Decision Theory. Ann. Rev. Psych., 12, pp 473-479.

3. Gonzales, R., Wu, G., (1999). On the Shape of the Probability Weighting Function, Cognitive Psychology, 38, pp 129-166.

4. Hey, J. D., Morone, A., Schmidt U., (2009). Noise and bias in eliciting preferences, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 39, pp 213-235.

5. Kahneman, D., Tversky, A., (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica, 47, pp 313-327.

6. Kontek, K., (2009a). On Mental Transformations. MPRA Paper http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/16516/, Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1437722 .

7. Kontek, K., (2009b). Lottery Valuation Using the Aspiration / Relative Utility Function, Warsaw School of Economics, Department of Applied Econometrics Working Paper no. 39. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1437420 and RePec:wse:wpaper:39.

8. Kontek, K., (2010a). Mean, median or Mode? A Striking Conclusion from Lottery Experiments, MPRA Paper http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/21758/, Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1581436

9. Kontek, K., (2010b). Density Based Regression for Inhomogeneous Data; Application to Lottery Experiments, MPRA Paper http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/22268/, Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1593766

10. Markowitz H., (1952A). The Utility of Wealth. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 60, 151-158.

11. Quiggin J., (1982). A theory of anticipated utility. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 3(4), 323–43.

12. Traub, S., Schmidt, U., (2009). An Experimental Investigation of the Disparity between WTA and WTP for Lotteries, Theory & Decision, 66, pp 229-262.

13. Tversky A., Kahneman D., (1992). Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, vol. 5(4), October, 297-323.