Harin, Alexander (2015): Problems of utility and prospect theories. A “certain–uncertain” inconsistency within their experimental methods.

PDF
MPRA_paper_67911.pdf Download (113kB)  Preview 
Abstract
In random–lottery incentive experiments, the choices of certain outcomes are stimulated by uncertain lotteries. This “certain–uncertain” inconsistency is evident, but only recently emphasized. Because of it, conclusions from a random–lottery incentive experiment that includes a certain outcome cannot be unquestionably correct. Wellknown experimental results and purely mathematical theorems support this. The main result presented here is: The usual experimental systems of utility and prospect theories may need additional independent analyses in the context of the “certain–uncertain” inconsistency.
Item Type:  MPRA Paper 

Original Title:  Problems of utility and prospect theories. A “certain–uncertain” inconsistency within their experimental methods 
Language:  English 
Keywords:  utility; prospect theory; experiment; incentive; randomlottery incentive system; Prelec; probability weighting function; 
Subjects:  C  Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C1  Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General C  Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C9  Design of Experiments C  Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C9  Design of Experiments > C90  General C  Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C9  Design of Experiments > C91  Laboratory, Individual Behavior C  Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C9  Design of Experiments > C93  Field Experiments D  Microeconomics > D8  Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty D  Microeconomics > D8  Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty > D81  Criteria for DecisionMaking under Risk and Uncertainty 
Item ID:  67911 
Depositing User:  Alexander Harin 
Date Deposited:  16. Nov 2015 22:22 
Last Modified:  16. Nov 2015 23:08 
References:  Abdellaoui, M., A. Baillon, L. Placido, and P. P. Wakker, “The Rich Domain of Uncertainty: Source Functions and Their Experimental Implementation,” American Economic Review, 101 (2011), 695–723. Aczél, J., and D. R. Luce, “A behavioral condition for Prelec’s weighting function on the positive line without assuming W(1) = 1,” Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 51 (2007), 126–129. Andreoni, J., and C. Sprenger, “Risk Preferences Are Not Time Preferences,” American Economic Review, 102 (2012), 3357–76. Baltussen, G., T. Post, M. J. van den Assem, and P. P. Wakker “Random Incentive Systems in a Dynamic Choice Experiment,” Experimental Economics, 15 (2012), 418–443. Beattie, J., and G. Loomes, “The impact of incentives upon risky choice experiments,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 14 (1997), 155–168. Bordalo, P., N. Gennaioli, and A. Shleifer, “Salience theory of choice under risk,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 127(3), pages 12431285. 2012 Butler, D., and G. Loomes, “Imprecision as an Account of the Preference Reversal Phenomenon,” American Economic Review, 97 (2007), 277–297. Chay, K., P. McEwan, and M. Urquiola, “The Central Role of Noise in Evaluating Interventions that Use Test Scores to Rank Schools,” American Economic Review, 95 (2005), 1237–1258. Cubitt, R., C. Starmer, and R. Sugden, “On the validity of the random lottery incentive system,” Experimental Economics, 1 (1998), 115–131. Delbaen, F., S. Drapeau, and M. Kupper, “A von Neumann–Morgenstern representation result without weak continuity assumption,” Journal of Mathematical Economics, 47 (2011), 401–408. Fehr, E., and A. Falk, “Psychological foundations of incentives,” European Economic Review, 46 (2002), 687–724. Harin, А., “The random–lottery incentive system. Can p~1 experiments deductions be correct?” 16th conference on the Foundations of Utility and Risk, 2014. Harin, А., “Data dispersion in economics (II) – Inevitability and Consequences of Restrictions,” Review of Economics & Finance, 2 (2012), 24–36. Harrison, G. W., E. Johnson, M. Mcinnes, and E. Rutström, “Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects: Comment,” American Economic Review, 95 (2005), 897–901. Holt, C. A., and S. K. Laury, “Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects” American Economic Review, 92 (2002), 1644–1655. Kahneman, D., J. L. Knetsch, and R. H. Thaler, “Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias,” The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5 (1991), 193–206. Kahneman, D., and R. H. Thaler, “Anomalies: Utility Maximization and Experienced Utility,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20 (2006), 221–234. Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky, “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,” Econometrica, 47 (1979), 263–291. Larkin, I., and S. Leider, “Incentive Schemes, Sorting, and Behavioral Biases of Employees: Experimental Evidence,” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 4 (2012), 184–214. Loewenstein, G., and R. H. Thaler, “Anomalies. Intertemporal Choice,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3 (1989), 181–193. Masson, R. T., “Utility Functions with Jump Discontinuities: Some Evidence and Implications from Peasant Agriculture,” Economic Inquiry, 12, No. 4 (1974), 559–566. Prelec, D., “The Probability Weighting Function,” Econometrica, 66 (1998), 497–527. Schoemaker, P., The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidence and Limitations. Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Jun., 1982), pp. 529–563 Schoemaker, P., and J. Hershey, “Utility measurement: Signal, noise, and bias,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52 (1992), 397–424. Steingrimsson, R., & Luce, R. D., Empirical evaluation of a model of global psychophysical judgments: IV. Forms for the weighting function. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 51(2007), 29–44. Starmer, C., “Developments in NonExpected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk,” Journal of Economic Literature, 38 (2000), 332–382. Starmer, C., and R. Sugden, “Does the Random–Lottery Incentive System Elicit True Preferences? An Experimental Investigation,” American Economic Review, 81 (1991), 971–78. Tversky, A, and D. Kahneman, "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5 (1992), 297–323. Vossler, C. A., M. Doyon, and D. Rondeau, “Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments,” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 4 (2012), 145–171. Vrijdags, A., and T. Marchant, “From Uniform Expected Utility to Uniform RankDependent Utility: An experimental study,” Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 64–65 (2015), 76–86. 
URI:  https://mpra.ub.unimuenchen.de/id/eprint/67911 