[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/5q4g7.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Ambiguous Outcome Magnitude in Economic Decision Making with Low and High Monetary Stakes

Author

Listed:
  • Zbozinek, Tomislav Damir

    (California Institute of Technology)

  • Charpentier, Caroline Juliette
  • Qi, Song
  • mobbs, dean
Abstract
Most of life’s decisions involve risk and uncertainty regarding whether reward or loss will follow. A major approach to understanding decision-making under these circumstances comes from economics research. While many economic decision-making experiments have focused on gains/losses and risk (<100% probability of a given outcome), relatively few have studied ambiguity (i.e., uncertainty about the degree of risk or magnitude of gains/losses). Within ambiguity, most studies have focused on ambiguous risk (uncertainty regarding likelihood of outcomes), but few studies have investigated ambiguous outcome magnitude (i.e., uncertainty regarding how small/large the gain/loss will be). In the present report, we investigated the effects of ambiguous outcome magnitude, risk, and gains/losses in an economic decision-making task with low stakes (Study 1; $3.60-$5.70; N = 367) and high stakes (Study 2; $6-$48; N = 210) using the same participants in Study 2 as in Study 1. We conducted computational modeling to determine individuals’ preferences/aversions for ambiguous outcome magnitudes, risk, and gains/losses. Our results show that increasing stakes increases ambiguous gain aversion, unambiguous loss aversion, and unambiguous risk aversion, but increases ambiguous loss preference. These results suggest that as stakes increase, people tend to avoid uncertainty and loss in most domains but prefer ambiguous loss.

Suggested Citation

  • Zbozinek, Tomislav Damir & Charpentier, Caroline Juliette & Qi, Song & mobbs, dean, 2021. "Ambiguous Outcome Magnitude in Economic Decision Making with Low and High Monetary Stakes," OSF Preprints 5q4g7, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:5q4g7
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/5q4g7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/6067875e51f7ae009bf51ff8/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/5q4g7?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hans P. Binswanger, 1980. "Attitudes Toward Risk: Experimental Measurement in Rural India," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 62(3), pages 395-407.
    2. Oliver, Bl, 1972. "Study Of Confidence Interval Financial Statements," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(1), pages 154-166.
    3. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Han Bleichrodt & Olivier L’Haridon, 2008. "A tractable method to measure utility and loss aversion under prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 245-266, June.
    4. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    5. Craig R. Fox & Amos Tversky, 1995. "Ambiguity Aversion and Comparative Ignorance," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 110(3), pages 585-603.
    6. Harry Markowitz, 1952. "The Utility of Wealth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 60(2), pages 151-151.
    7. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2005. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects: New Data without Order Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(3), pages 902-912, June.
    8. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    9. Helga Fehr-Duda & Adrian Bruhin & Thomas Epper & Renate Schubert, 2010. "Rationality on the rise: Why relative risk aversion increases with stake size," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 147-180, April.
    10. 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..
    11. Camerer, Colin & Weber, Martin, 1992. "Recent Developments in Modeling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 325-370, October.
    12. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Han Bleichrodt & Olivier L’haridon & Dennie van Dolder, 2016. "Measuring Loss Aversion under Ambiguity: A Method to Make Prospect Theory Completely Observable," Post-Print halshs-01242616, HAL.
    13. Raghunathan, Rajagopal & Pham, Michel Tuan, 1999. "All Negative Moods Are Not Equal: Motivational Influences of Anxiety and Sadness on Decision Making, , , , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 79(1), pages 56-77, July.
    14. Daniel Kahneman & Jack L. Knetsch & Richard H. Thaler, 1991. "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
    15. Kuhn, Kristine M. & Budescu, David V., 1996. "The Relative Importance of Probabilities, Outcomes, and Vagueness in Hazard Risk Decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 301-317, December.
    16. Heath, Chip & Tversky, Amos, 1991. "Preference and Belief: Ambiguity and Competence in Choice under Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 5-28, January.
    17. Kachelmeier, Steven J & Shehata, Mohamed, 1992. "Examining Risk Preferences under High Monetary Incentives: Experimental Evidence from the People's Republic of China," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(5), pages 1120-1141, December.
    18. Glenn W. Harrison & Eric Johnson & Melayne M. McInnes & E. Elisabet Rutström, 2005. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(3), pages 897-901, June.
    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. Booij, Adam S. & van de Kuilen, Gijs, 2009. "A parameter-free analysis of the utility of money for the general population under prospect theory," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 651-666, August.
    2. Julius Pahlke & Sebastian Strasser & Ferdinand Vieider, 2015. "Responsibility effects in decision making under risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 125-146, October.
    3. Galarza, Francisco, 2009. "Choices under Risk in Rural Peru," MPRA Paper 17708, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Ferdinand M. Vieider & Peter Martinsson & Pham Khanh Nam & Nghi Truong, 2019. "Risk preferences and development revisited," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(1), pages 1-21, February.
    5. Koch, Christopher & Schunk, Daniel, 2007. "The Case for Limited Auditor Liability - The Effects of Liability Size on Risk Aversion and Ambiguity Aversion," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 07-04, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    6. Mercè Roca & Robin Hogarth & A. Maule, 2006. "Ambiguity seeking as a result of the status quo bias," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 175-194, May.
    7. D. A. Peel & Jie Zhang & D. Law, 2008. "The Markowitz model of utility supplemented with a small degree of probability distortion as an explanation of outcomes of Allais experiments over large and small payoffs and gambling on unlikely outc," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(1), pages 17-26.
    8. Bouchouicha, Ranoua & Martinsson, Peter & Medhin, Haileselassie & Vieider, Ferdinand M., 2017. "Stake effects on ambiguity attitudes for gains and losses," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 83(1), pages 19-35.
    9. Georgalos, Konstantinos & Paya, Ivan & Peel, David A., 2021. "On the contribution of the Markowitz model of utility to explain risky choice in experimental research," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 527-543.
    10. Bartczak, Anna & Chilton, Susan & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2015. "Wildfires in Poland: The impact of risk preferences and loss aversion on environmental choices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 300-309.
    11. Hwang, In Do, 2021. "Prospect theory and insurance demand: Empirical evidence on the role of loss aversion," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    12. Géraldine Bocquého & Julien Jacob & Marielle Brunette, 2023. "Prospect theory in multiple price list experiments: further insights on behaviour in the loss domain," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 94(4), pages 593-636, May.
    13. Maren Baars & Michael Goedde‐Menke, 2022. "Ignorance illusion in decisions under risk: The impact of perceived expertise on probability weighting," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 89(1), pages 35-62, March.
    14. Yan Li & David Ahlstrom, 2020. "Risk-taking in entrepreneurial decision-making: A dynamic model of venture decision," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 899-933, September.
    15. Géraldine Bocquého & Julien Jacob & Marielle Brunette, 2020. "Prospect theory in experiments : behaviour in loss domain and framing effects," Working Papers hal-02987294, HAL.
    16. Johannes G. Jaspersen, 2016. "Hypothetical Surveys And Experimental Studies Of Insurance Demand: A Review," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 83(1), pages 217-255, January.
    17. André Palma & Mohammed Abdellaoui & Giuseppe Attanasi & Moshe Ben-Akiva & Ido Erev & Helga Fehr-Duda & Dennis Fok & Craig Fox & Ralph Hertwig & Nathalie Picard & Peter Wakker & Joan Walker & Martin We, 2014. "Beware of black swans: Taking stock of the description–experience gap in decision under uncertainty," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 269-280, September.
    18. Jie Zhang & Ivan Paya & David Peel, 2010. "An Empirical Analysis of Choices Between Gambles of Children and Adults in China," Journal of Gambling Business and Economics, University of Buckingham Press, vol. 4(1), pages 1-18, March.
    19. Marc Scholten & Daniel Read, 2014. "Prospect theory and the “forgotten” fourfold pattern of risk preferences," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 67-83, February.
    20. Kerri Brick & Martine Visser & Justine Burns, 2012. "Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence from South African Fishing Communities," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(1), pages 133-152.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:osf:osfxxx:5q4g7. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    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.