Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Comparison of Five Models that Predict Violations of First-Order Stochastic Dominance in Risky Decision Making

  • Published:
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Five descriptive models of risky decision making are tested in this article, including four quantitative models and one heuristic account. Seven studies with 1802 participants were conducted to compare accuracy of predictions to new tests of first order stochastic dominance. Although the heuristic model was a contender in previous studies, it can be rejected by the present data, which show that incidence of violations varies systematically with the probability distribution in the gambles. The majority continues to violate stochastic dominance even when two of three branches have higher consequences in the dominant gamble, and they persist in mixed gambles even when probability to win is higher and probability to lose is lower in the dominant gamble. The transfer of attention exchange model (TAX) was the most accurate model for predicting the results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Becker, Joao L. and Rakesh K. Sarin. (1987). “Lottery Dependent Utility,” Management Science 33, 1367–1382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birnbaum, Michael H. (1974). “The Nonadditivity of Personality Impressions,” Journal of Experimental Psychology 102, 543–561.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birnbaum, Michael H. (1997). “Violations of Monotonicity in Judgment and Decision Making,” In Anthony A. J. Marley (ed.), Choice, Decision, and Measurement: Essays in Honor of R. Duncan Luce. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 73–100.

  • Birnbaum, Michael H. (1999a). “Paradoxes of Allais, Stochastic Dominance, and Decision Weights,” In James Shanteau, Barbara Mellers, and David Schum (eds.), Decision Science and Technology: Reflections on the Contributions of Ward Edwards. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 27–52.

  • Birnbaum, Michael H. (1999b). “Testing Critical Properties of Decision Making on the Internet,” Psychological Science 10, 399–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birnbaum, Michael H. (2004a). “Causes of Allais Common Consequence Paradoxes: An Experimental Dissection,” Journal of Mathematical Psychology 48, 87–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birnbaum, Michael H. (2004b). “Tests of Rank-Dependent Utility and Cumulative Prospect Theory in Gambles Represented by Natural Frequencies: Effects of Format, Event Framing, and Branch Splitting,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 95, 40–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birnbaum, Michael H. (2005) “Three New Tests of Independence that Differentiate Models of Risky Decision Making,” Management Science 51, 1346–1358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birnbaum, Michael H. and Teresa Martin. (2003). “Generalization Across People, Procedures, and Predictions: Violations of Stochastic Dominance and Coalescing,” In Sandra L. Schneider and James Shanteau (eds.), Emerging Perspectives on Decision Research. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 84–107.

  • Birnbaum, Michael H. and William R. McIntosh. (1996). “Violations of Branch Independence in Choices Between Gambles,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 67, 91–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birnbaum, Michael H. and Juan B. Navarrete. (1998). “Testing Descriptive Utility Theories: Violations of Stochastic Dominance and Cumulative Independence,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 17, 49–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birnbaum, Michael H., Jamie N. Patton and Melissa K. Lott. (1999). “Evidence Against Rank-Dependent Utility Theories: Violations of Cumulative Independence, Interval Independence, Stochastic Dominance, and Transitivity,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 77, 44–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birnbaum, Michael H. and Stephen E. Stegner. (1979). “Source Credibility in Social Judgment: Bias, Expertise, and The Judge's Point of View,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37, 48–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, Colin F. and Robyn M. Hogarth. (1999). “The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Theory,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 19, 7–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diecidue, Enrico and Peter P. Wakker. (2001). “On The Intuition of Rank-Dependent Utility,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 23, 281–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, Peter C. (1978). “On Handa's ‘New Theory of Cardinal Utility’ and the Maximization of Expected Return,” Journal of Political Economy 86, 321–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez, Richard and George Wu. (1999). “On The Shape of The Probability Weighting Function,” Cognitive Psychology 38, 129–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey, Steven J. (1995). “Regret Aversion or Event-Splitting Effects? More Evidence Under Risk and Uncertainty,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 11, 263–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, Daniel. (2003). “Experiences of Collaborative Research,” American Psychologist 58, 723–730.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, Daniel and Amos Tversky. (1979). “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk,” Econometrica 47, 263–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, Moshe and Haim Levy. (2002). “Prospect Theory: Much Ado About Nothing,” Management Science 48, 1334–1349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopes, Lola L. and Gregg C. Oden. (1999). “The Role of Aspiration Level in Risky Choice: A Comparison of Cumulative Prospect Theory and SP/A Theory,” Journal of Mathematical Psychology 43, 286–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. Duncan. (1998). “Coalescing, Event Commutativity, and Theories of Utility,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 16, 87–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. Duncan. (2000). “Utility of Gains and Losses: Measurement-Theoretical and Experimental Approaches,”

  • Luce, R. Duncan and Peter C. Fishburn. (1991). “Rank- and Sign-Dependent Linear Utility Models for Finite First Order Gambles,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 4, 29–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. Duncan and Peter C. Fishburn. (1995). “A Note on deriving Rank-Dependent Utility Using Additive Joint Receipts,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 11, 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. Duncan and Anthony A. J. Marley. (2005). “Ranked Additive Utility Representations of Gambles: Old and New Axiomatizations,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 30, 21–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marley, Anthony A. J. and R. Duncan Luce. (2001). “Rank-Weighted Utilities and Qualitative Convolution,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 23, 135–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marley, Anthony A. J. and R. Duncan Luce. (in press). “Independence Properties Vis-à-vis Several Utility Representations,” Theory and Decision in press.

  • Martin, Teresa. (1998). “Comparing Rank Dependent, Subjective Weight, and Configural Weight Utility Models: Transitivity, Monotonicity, Coalescing, Stochastic Dominance, and Event Splitting Independence,” Master's Thesis, California State University, Fullerton.

  • Meginniss, James R. (1976). “A New Class of Symetric Utility Rules for Gambles, Subjective Marginal Probability Functions, and a Generalized Bayes’ Rule,” Proceedings of The American Statistical Association, Business and Economic Statistics Section, 471–476.

  • Ng, Che T., R. Duncan Luce and Anthony A. J. Marley. (manuscript). “On The Utility of Gambling: Extending The Approach of Meginniss (1976),” manuscript available from R. Duncan Luce, School of Social Science, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-5100.

  • Quiggin, John. (1985). “Subjective Utility, Anticipated Utility, and The Allais Paradox,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 35, 94–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quiggin, John. (1993). Generalized Expected Utility Theory: The Rank-Dependent Model. Boston: Kluwer.

  • Savage, Leonard J. (1954). The Foundations of Statistics. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starmer, Chris. (2000). “Developments in Non-Expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice Under Risk,” Journal of Economic Literature 38, 332–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starmer, Chris and Robert Sugden. (1989). “Violations of the Independence Axiom in Common Ratio Problems: An Experimental Test of Some Competing Hypotheses,” Annals of Operations Research 19, 79–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starmer, Chris and Robert Sugden. (1993). “Testing for Juxtaposition and Event-Splitting Effects,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 6, 235–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, Amos and Daniel Kahneman. (1986). “Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions,” Journal of Business 59, S251–S278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, Amos and Daniel Kahneman. (1992). “Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5, 297–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, Amos and Peter Wakker. (1995). “Risk Attitudes and Decision Weights,” Econometrica 63, 1255–1280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viscusi, W. Kip. (1989). “Prospective Reference Theory: Toward an Explanation of the Paradoxes,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2, 235–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wakker, Peter. “The Data of Levy and Levy (2002), “Prospect Theory: Much Ado About Nothing?” Support Prospect Theory,” Management Science 49, 979–981.

  • Wakker, Peter and Amos Tversky. (1993). “An Axiomatization of Cumulative Prospect Theory,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 7, 147–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, Elke U. (1994). “From Subjective Probabilities to Decision Weights: The Effects of Asymmetric Loss Functions on the Evaluation of Uncertain Outcomes and Events,” Psychological Bulletin 114, 228–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, George. (1994). “An Empirical Test of Ordinal Independence,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 9, 39–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, George and Richard Gonzalez. (1996). “Curvature of the Probability Weighting Function,” Management Science 42, 1676–1690.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, George and Alex B. Markle. (2004). “An Empirical Test of Gain-Loss Separability in Prospect Theory,” Working Manuscript, 06-25-04. Available from George Wu, University of Chicago, Graduate School of Business, 1101 E. 58 th Street, Chicago, IL 60637, http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/george.wu/research/abstracts.html.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, CSUF H-830M, P.O. Box 6846, Fullerton, CA, 92834-6846

    Michael H. Birnbaum

Authors
  1. Michael H. Birnbaum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael H. Birnbaum.

Additional information

Support was received from National Science Foundation Grants, SBR-9410572, SES 99-86436, and BCS-0129453.

JEL Classification: C91, D81

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Birnbaum, M.H. A Comparison of Five Models that Predict Violations of First-Order Stochastic Dominance in Risky Decision Making. J Risk Uncertainty 31, 263–287 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-005-5103-9

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-005-5103-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation