Paying to improve your chances: Gambling or insurance?

Will a more risk-averse individual spend more or less to improve probabilities, say on marketing efforts that enhance the chance of a sale? For any two payoffs and starting probabilities, the answer is unfortunately indeterminate. However, interpreting gambling as increasing small chances of good outcomes and insurance as reducing small chances of bad outcomes, the more risk-averse individual will pay less (more) to gamble (insure). We find a critical switching probability that depends on the individuals and outcomes involved. If the good outcome is less (more) likely than this critical value, the expenditures represent gambling (insurance).     

The role of risk preferences in bargaining when acceptance of a proposal requires less than unanimous approval

The role of risk preferences in determining the outcome to bargaining is examined for the case in which acceptance of a proposal requires less than unanimous approval. Using an n-agent extension of the Ståhl-Rubinstein alternating offer model, we find that risk preferences play a fundamentally different role when bargaining is settled using a nonunanimity voting rule. Risk preferences determine not only an agent's reservation price but also the likelihood that he is made part of the winning coalition. An implication of this analysis is that when the preferences of the agents are not too diverse, it is advantageous for an agent to be relatively risk-averse.The helpful comments and suggestions of Rich McLean and an anonymous referee are gratefully acknowledged. This article was presented as a paper at the 1988 Winter Econometric Society Meetings.     

The framing of nothing and the psychology of choice

Journal of Risk and Uncertainty - Zero outcomes are inconsequential in most models of choice. However, when disclosing zero outcomes they must be designated. It has been shown that a gamble is...     

The willingness-to-accept/willingness-to-pay disparity in repeated markets: loss aversion or ‘bad-deal’ aversion?

Several experimental studies have reported that an otherwise robust regularity—the disparity between Willingness-To-Accept and Willingness-To-Pay—tends to be greatly reduced in repeated markets, posing a serious challenge to existing reference-dependent and reference-independent models alike. This article offers a new account of the evidence, based on the assumptions that individuals are affected by good and bad deals relative to the expected transaction price (price sensitivity), with bad deals having a larger impact on their utility (`bad-deal’ aversion). These features of preferences explain the existing evidence better than alternative approaches, including the most recent developments of loss aversion models.     

It is Whether You Win or Lose: The Importance of the Overall Probabilities of Winning or Losing in Risky Choice

Imagine that you own a five-outcome gamble with the following payoffs and probabilities: ($100, .20; $50, .20; Imagine that you own a five-outcome gamble with the following payoffs and probabilities: ($100, .20; $50, .20; $0, .20; –$25, .20; –$50, .20). What happens when the opportunity to improve such a gamble is provided by a manipulation that adds value to one outcome versus another outcome, particularly when the opportunity to add value to one outcome versus another outcome changes the overall probability of a gain or the overall probability of a loss? Such a choice provides a simple test of the expected utility model (EU), original prospect theory (OPT), and cumulative prospect theory (CPT). A study of risky choices involving 375 respondents indicates that respondents were most sensitive to changes in outcome values that either increased the overall probability of a strict gain or decreased the overall probability of a strict loss. These results indicate more support for OPT rather than CPT and EU under various assumptions about the shape of the utility and value and weighting functions. Most importantly, the main difference between the various expectation models of risky choice occurs for outcomes near the reference value. A second study of risky choice involving 151 respondents again demonstrated the sensitivity of subjects to reducing the probability of a strict loss even at the cost of reduced expected value. Consequently, we argue that theories of how people choose among gambles that involve three or more consequences with both gains and losses need to include measures of the overall probabilities of a gain and of a loss.JEL Classification  D81     

Children's Beliefs About Self‐disclosure to Friends Regarding Academic Achievement

Self‐disclosure to friends is a potentially useful way for children to pursue a range of desired goals. Here we examined reasoning about the appropriateness of disclosing one's own academic outcomes in a sample of 7‐, 9‐, 11‐, 13‐, and 15‐year‐old Chinese participants (N = 150). The valence of (1) the outcomes to be disclosed and (2) the corresponding outcomes for the potential audience for the disclosure was manipulated factorially, and participants judged whether disclosure was advisable and explained their responses. Disclosure was seen as more appropriate under valence‐matching conditions than valence‐mismatching conditions. How participants judged each type of disclosure under valence‐mismatching conditions varied as a function of participant age: As compared with younger participants, older participants considered disclosure of weak performance to a stronger performer more acceptable and disclosure of strong performance to a weaker performer less acceptable. These findings suggest that older children are more likely than younger children to appreciate that self‐disclosing positive performance outcomes can bring social costs, and that self‐disclosing negative performance outcomes can bring social benefits.     

Axiomatization of a Preference for Most Probable Winner

In binary choice between discrete outcome lotteries, an individual may prefer lottery L₁ to lottery L₂ when the probability that L₁ delivers a better outcome than L₂ is higher than the probability that L₂ delivers a better outcome than L₁. Such a preference can be rationalized by three standard axioms (solvability, convexity and symmetry) and one less standard axiom (a fanning-in). A preference for the most probable winner can be represented by a skew-symmetric bilinear utility function. Such a utility function has the structure of a regret theory when lottery outcomes are perceived as ordinal and the assumption of regret aversion is replaced with a preference for a win. The empirical evidence supporting the proposed system of axioms is discussed.     

Is choice the correct primitive? On using certainty equivalents and reference levels to predict choices among gambles

Choice is viewed as a derived, not a primitive, concept. Individual gambles are assigned subjective certainty equivalents (CE₁); the choice setX has an associated reference level [RL(X)] based on the CE₁S of its members; the outcomes of each gamble are recoded as deviations from the RL(X); and new CE₂S are constructed. The gamble having the largest CE₂ is chosen. The CEs are described by the rank-and sign-dependent theory of Luce (1992b). The concept of RL is studied axiomatically. The model predicts many behavioral anomalies and is tested with data sets of Mellers, Chang, Birnbaum, and Ordóñez (1992).     

Dopamine and risk choices in different domains: Findings among serious tournament bridge players

We explore how risk-taking in the card game contract bridge, and in a financial gamble, correlate with variation in the dopamine receptor D4 gene (DRD4) among serious tournament bridge players. In bridge risk-taking, we find significant interactions between genetic predisposition and skill. Among men with the 7-repeat allele of DRD4, namely 7R + men, those with more bridge skill take more good risks and fewer bad risks, while the opposite is found for less-expert 7R + men. Conversely, skill does not predict risk-taking among men without the 7R + allele. Consistent with some prior studies, we also find that 7R + men take more risk in the financial gamble. We find no relationship between 7R + and either risk measure among our female subjects. Our results suggest that the dopamine system plays an important role in individual differences in risk-taking among men, and is the first to distinguish between advantageous and disadvantageous risk-taking.     

The Medium Prizes Paradox: Evidence From a Simulated Casino

Mainstream explanations to gambling specify conditions under which human agents are locally risk loving. Such theories, however, fail to explain the typically observed prize distribution of a few large prizes and a large number of medium ones—hence the medium prizes paradox. In the current study we show that adaptive learning models recently proposed in the literature offer a solution. Simulations of such models predict that multiple medium prizes will slow down the decrease (over time) in agents' inclination to gamble. We run a laboratory experiment that supports this explanation and shows that the positive effect of medium prizes on the inclination to gamble increases with time.     

For whom does social comparison induce risk-taking?

A ‘bonus culture’ among financial traders has been blamed for the excessive risk-taking in the run-up to the latest financial crisis. I show that when individuals are more social gain seeking than social loss averse (i.e. gloating is stronger than envy), social comparison predicts more risk-taking as well as a preference for negatively correlated gambles. Testing these two joint propositions in a laboratory experiment, I find that preference for positively or negatively correlated outcomes is highly correlated with risk-taking in a social risky investment task. While only a third of subjects prefer negatively correlated outcomes in a peer comparison setting, in line with relatively stronger social gain seeking, those subjects invest on average 50 % more in a risky gamble in their peer comparison setting than a reference group that made the same decision in an isolated individual setting. Subjects with a preference for positively correlated outcomes, in line with relatively stronger social loss aversion, do not show a higher propensity to invest in a risky gamble compared to the individual reference group.     

Inferring a linear ordering over a power set

An observer attempts to infer the unobserved ranking of two ideal objects, A and B, from observed rankings in which these objects are `accompanied' by `noise' components, C and D. In the first ranking, A is accompanied by C and B is accompanied by D, while in the second ranking, A is accompanied by D and B is accompanied by C. In both rankings, noisy-A is ranked above noisy-B. The observer infers that ideal-A is ranked above ideal-B. This commonly used inference rule is formalized for the case in which A,B,C,D are sets. Let X be a finite set and let be a linear ordering on 2^X. The following condition is imposed on . For every quadruple (A,B,C,D)Y, where Y is some domain in (2^X)⁴, if and , then . The implications and interpretation of this condition for various domains Y are discussed.     

Simple Collective Identity Functions

A Collective Identity Function (CIF) is a rule which aggregates personal opinions on whether an individual belongs to a certain identity into a social decision. A simple CIF is one which can be expressed in terms of winning coalitions. We characterize simple CIFs and explore various CIFs of the literature by exploiting their ability of being expressed in terms of winning coalitions. We also use our setting to introduce conditions that ensure the equal treatment of individuals as voters or as outcomes.     

Preparing for Elite Political Participation Simulations and the Political Socialization of Adolescents

Objective. We ask: How do socialization experiences shape adolescent perceptions of and the performance of gender in political leadership roles? We examine a political simulation, Model United Nations, which attracts academically motivated students aspiring to elite roles in politics and government. Methods. Using observational and survey data, we explore adolescent behavior in the simulation as both a learning experience and as a reflection of students' perceptions of leadership behavior. Results. Three critical observations emerge. First, the Model United Nations is a domain in which young women do not play an equal part. Female delegates take far fewer speaking turns. However, contextual factors, including membership on a committee that deals with less masculine issues and on a committee with a female chair, increase the likelihood of female turn‐taking. Second, though participants come to the event with very similar motivations, young women leave less satisfied with their personal effectiveness than do young men. Finally, female delegates are judged less favorably by themselves and others and thus as less successful in the simulation. Conclusions. These findings have normative implications for the recruitment of young women to politics.     

Security level,potential level,expected utility: A three-criteria decision model under risk

Among the violations of expected utility (E.U.) theory which have been observed by experimenters, the violations of its independence axiom is, by far, the most common. It seems that, in many cases, these inconsistencies can be ascribed to the desire for security - called the security factor by L. Lopes (1986) - which makes people attach special importance to the worst outcomes of risky decisions as well as to the sole outcomes of riskless decisions (certainty effect). J.-Y. Jaffray (1988) has proposed a model which generalizes E.U. theory by taking into account this factor and is then able to account for certain violations. However, especially in experiments on choice involving prospective losses, violations of the von Neumann-Morgenstern independence axiom cannot be explained by the security factor alone and have to be partially ascribed to the potential factor (L. Lopes, 1986) which reflects heightened attention to the best outcomes of decisions, especially when the best outcome is the status quo. In this paper, we construct an axiomatic model for subjects taking into account simultaneously or alternatively the security factor and the potential factor. For this, as in Jaffray's model, it has been necessary to weaken not only the standard independence axiom but also the continuity axiom and, in the same time, to reinforce the dominance axiom. In the resulting model, choices are partially determined by the mere comparison of the (security level, potential level) (i.e. the (worst outcome, best outcome)) pairs offered, and completed by the maximization of an affine function of the expected utility, the coefficients of which depend on both the security level and potential level.In this model, a decision maker who (i) has constant marginal utility for money, (ii) is sensitive to the security factor alone in the domain of gains, (iii) is sensitive to the potential factor alone in the domain of losses, behaves as a risk averter for gains and a risk seeker for losses.     

A note on the prisoner's dilemma

This paper clarifies some basic concepts or assumptions of the prisoner's dilemma, asserts the independence between the two agentsA andB, and advocates the application of the dominance principle of decision theory to the prisoner's dilemma. It discusses several versions of the prisoner's dilemma, including the one-shot and repeated cases of a noncooperative game from a purely egoistic point of view. The main part of this paper, however, is a study of the problem from a moral point of view through a special decision-theoretic approach. Morality is taken into account by incorporating the utility of the feeling of moral satisfaction for the agent, as a part of the total utility for the agent, into the decision-theoretic model. In this way the problem will appear as a purely technical decision problem, and the conflicts between various assumptions, or the dilemma caused by the problem, will no longer exist. It is also pointed out that in a more general case, for some values of the coefficient of moralityk, dominance will not exist so that the dominance principle will not be applicable.     

Rules of behavior and expected utility theory. Compatibility versus dependence

Conclusions We have seen that many decision rules which are intuitively and/or empirically supported and compatible with MEU, are compatible with it but not dependent on it.There are of course rules of behavior which are implied in MEU and also depend on it like this:If the hope of winning any of the prizes in a lottery motivates you to buy a ticket, and if you win half the amount of the highest prize, you should play double or nothing with your prize.Suppose you would prefer a one in a million chance of winning $2 million to a two in a million chance of winning $1 million, but your first choice is not available so you buy a ticket for $1 million. If you win, you should play 50–50 double or nothing with your prize. Generalize: put x in the place of $1 million and p in the place of 1/1 000000, and test yourself against this principle (Pf = preferred to): (p, 2x)Pf(2p, x) (0.5, 2x)Pf(1, x).See Friedmann and Savage (1968).In the real world lotteries are multiprize, i.e., composite games of elements like these. The same applies: If you would not have preferred the highest prize exchanged for a higher probability of some lower prize, then winning a lower prize would put you in the market for some simple bet like above. If you stand up to this test, you are a unique person because, as we know, such bets are not made.While in the process of finishing the final draft, I got hold of (Samuelson, 1983). He expresses grave doubts as to what he calls the dogma of Expected Utility maximizing. In a somewhat apologetic way, he preserves some formulations deriving behavior from EUM because, as he states in a general way, they do not depend on that particular dogma. More specifically: many models incompatible with EUM imply risk aversion, which would result also from maximizing the expectation of a concave utility function,In view of the authoritarian disposition of some of the strongest defenders of EUM and of Samuelson's (well deserved) authority and his leading role in the school of EUM theory, his open expression of doubt may well mark the beginning of the last chapter in the history of the rise and fall of the most powerful school that has so far been active in 20th century decision theory.     

Characterization of dominance relations in finite coalitional games

McGarvey (Econometrica, 21(4), 608–610, 1953) has shown that any irreflexive and anti-symmetric relation can be obtained as a relation induced by majority rule. We address the analogous issue for dominance relations of finite cooperative games with non-transferable utility (coalitional NTU games). We find any irreflexive relation over a finite set can be obtained as the dominance relation of some finite coalitional NTU game. We also show that any such dominance relation is induced by a non-cooperative game through β-effectivity. Dominance relations obtainable through α-effectivity, however, have to comply with a more restrictive condition, which we refer to as the edge-mapping property.     

The potential of iterative voting to solve the separability problem in referendum elections

In referendum elections, voters are often required to register simultaneous votes on multiple proposals. The separability problem occurs when a voter’s preferred outcome on one proposal depends on the outcomes of other proposals. This type of interdependence can lead to unsatisfactory or even paradoxical election outcomes, such as a winning outcome that is the last choice of every voter. Here we propose an iterative voting scheme that allows voters to revise their voting strategies based on the outcomes of previous iterations. Using a robust computer simulation, we investigate the potential of this approach to solve the separability problem.