Selected factors affecting decisions undertaken under risky circumstances
AbstractWhen making decisions about voluntary insurance or about taking part in a lottery, people should consider possible states of nature and a probability of their occurrence. Classical economics assumes that decisions of people acting in risky circumstances are compliant with the expected utility hypothesis. However theories based on human behaviour (in particular the cumulative prospect theory) claim that the process of decision making involves anomalies resulting from perception of reality e.g. the sign effect, peanuts effect and others. The paper aims to verify the impact of selected factors on decisions made by people in circumstances of profits and losses. This aim was achieved by means of consecutive experiments carried out. Factors like the amount of win/loss, the probability of winning/losing were examined on the sample of over 600 people and decisions taken by them. The results indicate that assumptions made by classical economics are not always met. In the experiments conducted, the attitude towards risks was affected by the amount of bet (with lower values there was a tendency to act safely), the probability of winning, a reference point and whether results of gaming were described as profits or losses.
Allais M. (1954) Le Comportement de l ’Homme Rationnel devant le Risque: Critique des Postulats et Axiomes de l ’Ecole Americaine” Econometrica, 21, (1953), pp. 503-546
Bernoulli D. (1954) Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk, Econometrica, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 23-36
Bilgin B. (2012) Losses loom more likely than gains: Propensity to imagine losses increases their subjective probability; Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118, pp. 203–215
Cieślak A. (2003) Behawioralna ekonomia finansowa. Modyfikacja paradygmatów funkcjonujących w nowoczesnej teorii finansów, Materiały i studia, zeszyt nr 165, NBP, s.45, 76
Dohmen T. (2005) Individual risk attitudes: new evidence from a large, representative, experimentally-validated survey, IZA Discussion Papers, No. 1730.
Donkers B., Melenberg B., Soest A.V. (2001) Estimating Risk Attitudes Using Lotteries: A Large Sample Approach, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 22(2), pp.165–195.
Druckman J. N., Kam C. D. (2011) Students as Experimental Participants: A Defense of the ‘Narrow Data Base’ [in:] Handbook of Experimental Political Science, eds. Druckman J. N., Green D. P., Kuklinski J. H., Lupia A., New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011, pp. 41-57.
Gonzalez R., Wu G.(1999) On the shape of probability weighting function, Cognitive Psychology, 38, pp. 129– 166.
Hoffmann A. O. I., Henry S. F., Kalogeras N. (2013) Aspirations as reference points: an experimental investigation of risk behavior over time: Theory and Decision, August, Volume 75, Issue 2, pp. 193-210.
Hogarth R., Einhorn H. (1990) Venture Theory: A model of decision weights: Management Science, 36(7), pp. 780–803.
Isen A., Patrick R. (1983) The effect of positive feelings on risk taking: When the chips are down: Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 31(2), pp. 194 – 202.
Kahneman D., Tversky A. (1974) Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases: Science, 185, pp. 1124 – 1130.
Kahneman D., Tversky A. (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk: Econometrica, 47, pp. 263 – 292.
Kühberger A., Schulte-Mecklenbeck M., Perner J. (1999) The Effects of Framing, Reflection, Probability, and Payoff on Risk Preference in Choice Tasks: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78(3), pp. 204 – 231.
Landers J. (2008) The effects of imagined and experienced regret on risk avoidance in a gambling task: Proquest, Umi Dissertation Publishing.
Machina M.J. (1987) Choice Under Uncertainty: Problems Solved and Unsolved: The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 1 (1), pp. 121-154.
Markowitz H. (1952) The Utility of Wealth, Journal of Political Economy, 60, pp. 151–156.
Mitchell S.H., Wilson V.B. (2010) The subjective value of delayed and probabilistic outcomes: Outcome size matters for gains but not for losses, Behavioural Processes, 83(1), pp. 36 – 40.
Nordgren L.F., Pligt van der J., Harreveld van F. (2007) Unpacking Perceived Control in Risk Perception: The Mediating Role of Anticipated Regret: Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20 (5), pp. 533–544.
Pabst S., Schoofs D., Pawlikowski M., Brand M., Wolf O.T. (2013) Paradoxical effects of stress and an executive task on decisions under risk: Behavioral Neuroscience, 127(3), pp. 369-79.
Pachur T., Kellen D. (2013) Modeling Gain-Loss Asymmetries in Risky Choice: The Critical Role of Probability Weighting, [in:] Knauff M., Pauen M., Sebanz N., Wachsmuth I. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 3205-3210, Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
Rock D. (2008) SCARF: a brain-based model for collaborating with and influencing others: NeuroLeadership Journal, Vol. 1(1), pp. 1- 9.
Simon H. (1957) Models of Man, Wiley, New York
Sokołowska J., “Risk Perception and Acceptance—One Process or Two?The Impact of Aspirations on Perceived Risk and Preferences”, Experimental Psychology 2006; Vol. 53(4), pp. 247–259.
Sokołowska J., Ducal K., Chlebowska K. (2012) Aspiracje a ocena ryzyka i wybór: Decyzja, 17, pp. 65 – 85.
Stigler G.J. (1950) The Development of Utility Theory: Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 58(4), pp. 307 - 327.
Von Neumann J., Morgenstern O. (1944) Theory of games and economic behavior: Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Yuen K.S.L., Lee T.M.C. (2003) Could mood state affect risk-taking decisions?: Journal of Affective Disorders 75, pp. 11–18.
The aim of CEREM is to make scientific work available in accordance with the principle of open access. The rules mentioned below are important, as they enable CEREM and its publisher, the WSB University in Wrocław, to distribute the scientific work to a wide public while complying with specific legal requirements, at the same time protecting the rights of the authors.
The author transfers to the WSB University in Wrocław, free of charge and without territorial limitations, with all proprietary copyrights to the said piece of work in the understanding of the act of 4th February 1994 on copyrights and derivative rights (Journal of Laws of 1994, no. 24, item 83, as amended) on an exclusivity basis, i.e. the rights to:
1. Make the piece of work in question available via the Digital Library established by the WSB University in Wrocław.
2. Produce, record and reproduce in multiple copies the piece of work using any techniques whatsoever, including printing, reprography, magnetic recording and digital processing, and particularly its reproduction by recording on CDs and similar data carriers,
3. Use fragments of the piece of work for promotional purposes in publications, promotional materials, the Internet and Intranet type networks managed by the WSB University in Wrocław.
4. Store the piece of work into computer databases managed by the WSB University in Wrocław.
5. Copy and reproduce the piece of work using photo-mechanic technologies other than those commonly known at the time of the signature hereof (photocopies, Xerox copies etc.),
6. Process the piece of work, transferring it into an electronic form, and distribute it on the Internet without limitations.