What is the actual shape of perception utility?

Kontek, Krzysztof (2011): What is the actual shape of perception utility?

Abstract

Cumulative Prospect Theory (Kahneman, Tversky, 1979, 1992) holds that the value function is described using a power function, and is concave for gains and convex for losses. These postulates are questioned on the basis of recently reported experiments, paradoxes (gain-loss separability violation), and brain activity research. This paper puts forward the hypothesis that perception utility is generally logarithmic in shape for both gains and losses, and only happens to be convex for losses when gains are not present in the problem context. This leads to a different evaluation of mixed prospects than is the case with Prospect Theory: losses are evaluated using a concave, rather than a convex, utility function. In this context, loss aversion appears to be nothing more than the result of applying a logarithmic utility function over the entire outcome domain. Importantly, the hypothesis enables a link to be established between perception utility and Portfo-lio Theory (Markowitz, 1952A). This is not possible in the case of the Prospect Theory value function due its shape at the origin.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Prospect Theory, value function, perception utility, loss aversion, gain-loss separability violation, neuroscience, Portfolio Theory, Decision Utility Theory.
• Subjects: 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; G - Financial Economics > G1 - General Financial Markets > G11 - Portfolio Choice ; Investment Decisions; D - Microeconomics > D8 - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty > D87 - Neuroeconomics; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C9 - Design of Experiments > C91 - Laboratory, Individual Behavior

References

Abdellaoui, M., Bleichrodt, H., Parashiv, C., (2007). Loss Aversion under Prospect Theory: A Parameter-Free Measurement. Management Science, 53(10), pp. 1659-1674.

Abdellaoui, M., Bleichrodt, H., Haridon, O. L., (2008). A Tractable Method to Measure Utility and Loss Aversion under Prospect Theory. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 36(3), pp. 245-266.

Birnbaum, M. H., Bahra, J. P., (2007). Gain-Loss Separability and Coalescing in Risky Decision Making. Management Science, 53, pp. 1016-1028.

Blavatsky, P. (2005). Back to the St. Petersburg Paradox?, Management Science 51, pp. 677-678.

Booij, A. S. G., van de Kuilen, (2006). A parameter-free analysis of the utility of money for the general population under prospect theory. Working Paper, University of Amsterdam.

Etchart-Vincent, N., (2009). The shape of the utility function under risk in the loss domain and the ‘ruinous losses’ hypothesis: Some experimental results. Economic Bulletin, 29(2), pp. 1404-1413.

Fehr-Duda, H., de Gennaro, M., Schubert, R., (2006). Gender, Financial Risk, and Probability Weights. Theory and Decision, 60, pp. 283-313.

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

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

Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J., Thaler, R., (1990). Experimental Test of the endowment effect and the Coase Theorem. Journal of Political Economy 98(6), 1325-1348.

Kahneman, D. (1999). Objective Happiness. In Kahneman, D., Diener, E. Schwarz, N. (Editors) Well-Being. The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology. Russell Sage Foundation. pp. 302-329.

Kocher, M., Pahlke, J., Trautmann, S., (2011). Tempus Fugit: Time Pressure in Risky Decisions. Munich Discussion Paper No. 2011-8, Department of Economics, University of Munich, http://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/12221/

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

Kontek, K. (2010). Decision Utility Theory: Back to von Neumann, Morgenstern, and Markowitz. Working Paper available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1718424

van de Kuilen, G., (2007). The economic measurement of psychological risk attitudes. Dissertation, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Amsterdam. http://dare.uva.nl/document/44755

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, pp. 337-400.

Libby, R., Fishburn, P., (1977). Behavioral Models of Risk-Taking in Busieness Decisions: A Survey and Evaluation. Jornal of Accounting Research, 15(2), pp. 272-292.

Litt, A., Eliasmith, C., Thagard, P., (2008). Neural affective decision theory: Choices, brains, and emotions. Cognitive Systems Research, 9, pp. 252-273.

Markowitz H., (1952A). Portfolio Selection, Journal of Finance, 7(1), 77-91.

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

McGraw, A. P., Larsen, J. T., Kahneman, D., Schkade, D., (2010). Comparing Gains and Losses. Psychological Science, 21(10), pp. 1438-1445.

Neilson, W. S, Stowe, J., (2002). A Further Examination of Cumulative Prospect Theory Parameterizations. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 31-46, January

von Neumann, J., Morgenstern, O., (1944). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, Princeton University Press.

Payne, J. W., Laughhunn, D. J., Crum, R., (1980). Translation of gambles and aspiration level effects in risky choice behavior. Management Science, 26, pp. 1039-1060.

Pennings, J. M. E., Smidts, A., (2000). Assesing the construct validity of risk attitude. Management Science, 46, pp. 1337-1348.

Prelec, Drazen. (1998). The Probability Weighting Function. Econometrica, 66:3 (May), 497-527.

Scholten, M., Read, D., (2011). Anomalies to Markowitz’s Hypothesis and a Prospect-Theoretical Interpretation. SSRN Working paper: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1504630

Smith, K., Dickhaut, J., McCabe, K., Pardo, J. V., (2002). Neuronal Substrates for Choice Under Ambiguity, Risk, Gains, and Losses. Management Science, 48(6), pp. 711-718.

Stevens, S. S., (1957). On the psychophysical law. Psychological Review 64(3), pp. 153–181.

Tom, S. M., Fox, C. R., Trepel, C., Poldrack, R. A., (2007). The Neural Basis of Loss Aversion in Decision-Making Under Risk, Science, 315, pp. 515-518.

Tversky, A., Kahneman, D., (1991). Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(4), pp. 1039-1061.

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

Wu, G., Markle, A. B., (2008), An Empirical Test of Gain-Loss Separability in Prospect Theory. Management Science, 54, pp. 1322-1335.

Yacubian, J., Glaescher, J., Schroeder, K., Sommer, T., Braus, D. F., Buechel, C., (2006). Dissociable systems for gain- and loss-related value predictions and error of prediction in the human brain. Journal of Neuroscience, 26, pp. 9530-9537.