Reexamining How Utility and Weighting Functions Get Their Shapes: A Quasi-Adversarial Collaboration Providing a New Interpretation

References

• Bateman I, Kahneman D, Munro A, Starmer C, Sugden R (2005) Testing competing models of loss aversion: An adversarial collaboration. J. Public Econom. 89(8):1561–1580.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bhatia S, Loomes G (2017) Noisy preferences in risky choice: A cautionary note. Psych. Rev. 124(5):678–687.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blavatskyy PR, Pogrebna G (2010) Models of stochastic choice and decision theories: Why both are important for analyzing decisions. J. Appl. Econometrics 25(6):963–986.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bruhin A, Fehr‐Duda H, Epper T (2010) Risk and rationality: Uncovering heterogeneity in probability distortion. Econometrica 78(4):1375–1412.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Buschena D, Zilberman D (2000) Generalized expected utility, heteroscedastic error, and path dependence in risky choice. J. Risk Uncertainty 20(1):67–88.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Camerer CF, Dreber A, Forsell E, Ho T-H, Huber J, Johannesson M, Kirchler M, Almenberg J, Altmejd A, Chan T, et al.. (2016) Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in economics. Science 351(6280):1433–1436.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Corrigan JR, Drichoutis AC, Lusk JL, Nayga RM, Rousu MC (2012) Repeated rounds with price feedback in experimental auction valuation: An adversarial collaboration. Amer. J. Agricultural Econom. 94(1):97–115.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Drichoutis AC, Nayga RM (2013) Eliciting risk and time preferences under induced mood states. J. Socio-Econom. 45:18–27.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Etchart-Vincent N (2004) Is probability weighting sensitive to the magnitude of consequences? An experimental investigation on losses. J. Risk Uncertainty 28(3):217–235.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr-Duda H, Bruhin A, Epper T, Schubert R (2010) Rationality on the rise: Why relative risk aversion increases with stake size. J Risk Uncertainty 40(2):147–180.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr-Duda H, Epper T, Bruhin A, Schubert R (2011) Risk and rationality: The effects of mood and decision rules on probability weighting. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 78(1):14–24.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fischbacher U (2007) z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experiment. Econom. 10(2):171–178.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Friedman D, Isaac RM, James D, Sunder S (2014) Risky Curves: On the Empirical Failure of Expected Utility (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gigerenzer G (2016) Towards a rational theory of heuristics. Frantz R, Marsh L, eds. Minds, Models, and Milieux: Commemorating the Centennial of the Birth of Herbert Simon (Palgrave Macmillan, New York), 34–59.Google Scholar
• Greiner B (2015) Subject pool recruitment procedures: Organizing experiments with ORSEE. J. Econom. Sci. Assoc. 1(1):114–125.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hey JD (1995) Experimental investigations of errors in decision making under risk. Eur. Econom. Rev. 39(3–4):633–640.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hey JD, Orme C (1994) Investigating generalizations of expected utility theory using experimental data. Econometrica: J. Econometric Soc. 62(6):1291–1326.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Holt CA, Laury SK (2002) Risk aversion and incentive effects. Amer. Econom. Rev. 92(5):1644–1655.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Holt CA, Laury SK (2005) Risk aversion and incentive effects: New data without order effects. Amer. Econom. Rev. 95(3):902–912.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D (2003) Experiences of collaborative research. Amer. Psych. 58(9):723–730.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Latham GP, Erez M, Locke EA (1988) Resolving scientific disputes by the joint design of crucial experiments by the antagonists: Application to the Erez–Latham dispute regarding participation in goal setting. J. Appl. Psych. 73(4):753–772.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lefebvre M, Vieider FM, Villeval MC (2010) Incentive effects on risk attitude in small probability prospects. Econom. Lett. 109(2):115–120.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levitt SD, List JA (2009) Field experiments in economics: The past, the present, and the future. Eur. Econom. Rev. 53(1):1–18.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luce RD (1959) Individual Choice Behavior (John Wiley & Sons, New York).Google Scholar
• Maniadis Z, Tufano F, List JA (2014) One swallow doesn’t make a summer: New evidence on anchoring effects. Amer. Econom. Rev. 104(1):277–290.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McFadden DL (1976) Quantal choice analysis: A survey. Ann. Econom. Soc. Measurement 5(4):363–390.Google Scholar
• McFadden D (2001) Economic choices. Amer. Econom. Rev. 91(3):351–378.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mellers B, Hertwig R, Kahneman D (2001) Do frequency representations eliminate conjunction effects? An exercise in adversarial collaboration. Psych. Sci. 12(4):269–275.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Open Science Collaboration (2015) Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349(6251):aac4716.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shepard RN (1957) Stimulus and response generalization: A stochastic model relating generalization to distance in psychological space. Psychometrica 22(4):325–345.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stewart N (2009) Decision by sampling: The role of the decision environment in risky choice. Quart. J. Experiment. Psych. 62(6):1041–1062.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stewart N, Canic E, Mullett T (2018) On the futility of estimating utility functions: Why the parameters we measure are wrong, and why they do not generalize. Working paper, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.Google Scholar
• Stewart N, Chater N, Brown GD (2006) Decision by sampling. Cognitive Psych. 53(1):1–26.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stewart N, Reimers S, Harris AJL (2015) On the origin of utility, weighting, and discounting functions: How they get their shapes and how to change their shapes. Management Sci. 61(3):687–705.Link, Google Scholar
• Viechtbauer W (2010) Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J. Statist. Software 36(3):1–48.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weber BJ, Chapman GB (2005) Playing for peanuts: Why is risk seeking more common for low-stakes gambles? Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 97(1):31–46.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wilcox NT (2011) ‘Stochastically more risk averse:’ A contextual theory of stochastic discrete choice under risk. J. Econometrics 162(1):89–104.Crossref, Google Scholar