دورية أكاديمية
Replicating patterns of prospect theory for decision under risk.
| العنوان: | Replicating patterns of prospect theory for decision under risk. |
|---|---|
| المؤلفون: | Ruggeri K; Department of Health Policy and Management, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. kai.ruggeri@columbia.edu.; Policy Research Group, Centre for Business Research, Judge Business School, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. kai.ruggeri@columbia.edu., Alí S; School of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK., Berge ML; Department of Personality & Health Psychology, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary., Bertoldo G; School of Psychology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy., Bjørndal LD; Department of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway., Cortijos-Bernabeu A; Department of Social Psychology and Quantitative Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain., Davison C; School of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK., Demić E; Department of Psychology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia., Esteban-Serna C; Division of Psychology & Language Sciences, University College London, London, UK., Friedemann M; Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK., Gibson SP; Department of Psychology, Health & Professional Development, Faculty of Health & Life Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK., Jarke H; Policy Research Group, Centre for Business Research, Judge Business School, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK., Karakasheva R; Division of Psychiatry and Applied Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK., Khorrami PR; Department of Sociomedical Sciences, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA., Kveder J; Department of Psychology, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia., Andersen TL; PPR Svendborg, Svendborg Municipality , Svendborg, Denmark., Lofthus IS; Department of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway., McGill L; Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland., Nieto AE; Department of Psychology, University Francisco de Vitoria, Madrid, Spain., Pérez J; Department of Psychology, University Francisco de Vitoria, Madrid, Spain., Quail SK; Department of Social Policy & Intervention, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK., Rutherford C; Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK., Tavera FL; Department of Psychology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany., Tomat N; Department of Psychology, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia., Reyn CV; Department of Psychology and Educational Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium., Većkalov B; Department of Psychology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia.; Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands., Wang K; Division of Psychology & Language Sciences, University College London, London, UK., Yosifova A; Department of Cognitive Science and Psychology, New Bulgarian University, Sofia, Bulgaria., Papa F; Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, France., Rubaltelli E; JDM Lab, Department of Developmental Psychology and Socialization, University of Padova, Padova, Italy., Linden SV; SDM Lab, Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK., Folke T; Department of Health Policy and Management, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. nf2480@cbr.cam.ac.uk.; Policy Research Group, Centre for Business Research, Judge Business School, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. nf2480@cbr.cam.ac.uk. |
| المصدر: | Nature human behaviour [Nat Hum Behav] 2020 Jun; Vol. 4 (6), pp. 622-633. Date of Electronic Publication: 2020 May 18. |
| نوع المنشور: | Journal Article |
| اللغة: | English |
| بيانات الدورية: | Publisher: Springer Nature Publishing Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 101697750 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 2397-3374 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 23973374 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Nat Hum Behav Subsets: MEDLINE |
| أسماء مطبوعة: | Original Publication: [London] : Springer Nature Publishing, [2017]- |
| مواضيع طبية MeSH: | Decision Making* , Psychological Theory*, Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Cross-Cultural Comparison ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Reproducibility of Results ; Risk ; Risk-Taking ; Young Adult |
| مستخلص: | Prospect theory is among the most influential frameworks in behavioural science, specifically in research on decision-making under risk. Kahneman and Tversky's 1979 study tested financial choices under risk, concluding that such judgements deviate significantly from the assumptions of expected utility theory, which had remarkable impacts on science, policy and industry. Though substantial evidence supports prospect theory, many presumed canonical theories have drawn scrutiny for recent replication failures. In response, we directly test the original methods in a multinational study (n = 4,098 participants, 19 countries, 13 languages), adjusting only for current and local currencies while requiring all participants to respond to all items. The results replicated for 94% of items, with some attenuation. Twelve of 13 theoretical contrasts replicated, with 100% replication in some countries. Heterogeneity between countries and intra-individual variation highlight meaningful avenues for future theorizing and applications. We conclude that the empirical foundations for prospect theory replicate beyond any reasonable thresholds. |
| References: | Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica 47, 263–291 (1979). (PMID: 10.2307/1914185) Markowitz, H. Portfolio selection. J. Financ. 7, 77–91 (1952). Savage, L. J. The Foundations of Statistics (Wiley, 1954). Barberis, N. C. Thirty years of prospect theory in economics: a review and assessment. J. Econ. Perspect. 27, 173–196 (2013). (PMID: 10.1257/jep.27.1.173) Altman, M. in Behavioral Finance: Investors, Corporations, and Markets Vol. 6 (eds Baker, H. K. & Nofsinger, J. R.) 191–209 (Wiley, 2010). Odean, T. Are investors reluctant to realize their losses? J. Financ. 53, 1775–1798 (1998). (PMID: 10.1111/0022-1082.00072) Genesove, D. & Mayer, C. Loss aversion and seller behavior: evidence from the housing market. Q. J. Econ. 116, 1233–1260 (2001). (PMID: 10.1162/003355301753265561) Benartzi, S. & Thaler, R. H. Myopic loss aversion and the equity premium puzzle. Q. J. Econ. 110, 73–92 (1995). (PMID: 10.2307/2118511) Johnson, E. J. et al. Can consumers make affordable care affordable? The value of choice architecture. PLoS ONE 8, e81521 (2013). (PMID: 10.1371/journal.pone.0081521) Sydnor, J. (Over) insuring modest risks. Am. Econ. J. 2, 177–199 (2010). Levy, J. S. Loss aversion, framing, and bargaining: the implications of prospect theory for international conflict. Int. Polit. Sci. Rev. 17, 179–195 (1996). (PMID: 10.1177/019251296017002004) Mercer, J. Prospect theory and political science. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 8, 1–21 (2005). (PMID: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.8.082103.104911) Simonsohn, U. [15] Citing prospect theory. Data Colada http://datacolada.org/15 (2014). Edwards, K. D. Prospect theory: a literature review. Int. Rev. Financ. Anal. 5, 19–38 (1996). (PMID: 10.1016/S1057-5219(96)90004-6) Arkes, H. R. & Blumer, C. The psychology of sunk cost. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 35, 124–140 (1985). (PMID: 10.1016/0749-5978(85)90049-4) Uecker, W., Schepanski, A. & Shin, J. Toward a positive theory of information evaluation: relevant tests of competing models in a principal-agency setting. Account. Rev. 60, 430–457 (1985). Gregory, R. Interpreting measures of economic loss: evidence from contingent valuation and experimental studies. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 13, 325–337 (1986). (PMID: 10.1016/0095-0696(86)90003-3) Loewenstein, G. F. Frames of mind in intertemporal choice. Manage. Sci. 34, 200–214 (1988). (PMID: 10.1287/mnsc.34.2.200) Newman, D. P. Prospect theory: implications for information evaluation. Account. Organ. Soc. 5, 217–230 (1980). (PMID: 10.1016/0361-3682(80)90011-2) Qualls, W. J. & Puto, C. P. Organizational climate and decision framing: an integrated approach to analyzing industrial buying decisions. J. Mark. Res. 26, 179–192 (1989). Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertain. 5, 297–323 (1992). (PMID: 10.1007/BF00122574) Diamond, W. D. The effect of probability and consequence levels on the focus of consumer judgments in risky situations. J. Consum. Res. 15, 280–283 (1988). (PMID: 10.1086/209165) Chang, O. H., Nichols, D. R. & Schultz, J. J. Taxpayer attitudes toward tax audit risk. J. Econ. Psychol. 8, 299–309 (1987). (PMID: 10.1016/0167-4870(87)90025-0) Payne, J. W., Laughhunn, D. J. & Crum, R. Multiattribute risky choice behavior: the editing of complex prospects. Manage. Sci. 30, 1350–1361 (1984). (PMID: 10.1287/mnsc.30.11.1350) Kvarven, A., Strømland, E. & Johannesson, M. Comparing meta-analyses and preregistered multiple-laboratory replication projects. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 423–434 (2020). (PMID: 10.1038/s41562-019-0787-z) Millroth, P. et al. The decision paradoxes motivating prospect theory: the prevalence of the paradoxes increases with numerical ability. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 14, 513–533 (2019). Behavioural Insights and Public Policy: Lessons from Around the World (OECD, 2017); https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264270480-en. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness (Penguin, 2009). McDermott, R. Prospect theory in political science: gains and losses from the first decade. Polit. Psychol. 25, 289–312 (2004). (PMID: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00372.x) Klein, R. A. et al. Investigating variation in replicability. Soc. Psychol. 45, 142–152 (2014). (PMID: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000178) Leys, C. et al. Detecting outliers: do not use standard deviation around the mean, use absolute deviation around the median. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 49, 764–766 (2013). (PMID: 10.1016/j.jesp.2013.03.013) Katsikopoulos, K. V. & Gigerenzer, G. One-reason decision-making: modeling violations of expected utility theory. J. Risk Uncertain. 37, 35–56 (2008). (PMID: 10.1007/s11166-008-9042-0) Simonsohn, U. Small telescopes: detectability and the evaluation of replication results. Psychol. Sci. 26, 559–569 (2015). (PMID: 10.1177/0956797614567341) Klein, R. A. et al. Many Labs 2: investigating variation in replicability across samples and settings. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 1, 443–490 (2018). (PMID: 10.1177/2515245918810225) Ebersole, C. R. et al. Many Labs 3: evaluating participant pool quality across the academic semester via replication. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 67, 68–82 (2016). (PMID: 10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.012) Franklin, M., Folke, T. & Ruggeri, K. Optimising nudges and boosts for financial decisions under uncertainty. Palgrave Commun. 5, 113 (2019). (PMID: 10.1057/s41599-019-0321-y) Kühberger, A., Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M. & Perner, J. Framing decisions: hypothetical and real. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 89, 1162–1175 (2002). (PMID: 10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00021-3) Beattie, J. & Loomes, G. The impact of incentives upon risky choice experiments. J. Risk Uncertain. 14, 155–168 (1997). (PMID: 10.1023/A:1007721327452) Wiseman, D. B. & Levin, I. P. Comparing risky decision making under conditions of real and hypothetical consequences. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 66, 241–250 (1996). (PMID: 10.1006/obhd.1996.0053) Harrell, F. E. Jr. Package ‘Hmisc’. CRAN2018, 235-6 https://cran.r-project.org/package=Hmisc (CRAN, 2019). Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211, 453–458 (1981). (PMID: 10.1126/science.7455683) Owens, B. Replication failures in psychology not due to differences in study populations. Nature News https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07474-y (19 November 2018). Goldberg, M. & van der Linden, S. The importance of heterogeneity in large-scale replications. J. Soc. Polit. Psychol. 8, 25–29 (2020). (PMID: 10.5964/jspp.v8i1.1187) Camerer, C. F. et al. Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2, 637 (2018). (PMID: 10.1038/s41562-018-0399-z) Gelman, A. & Carlin, J. Beyond power calculations: assessing type S (sign) and type M (magnitude) errors. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 9, 641–651 (2014). (PMID: 10.1177/1745691614551642) |
| تواريخ الأحداث: | Date Created: 20200520 Date Completed: 20201013 Latest Revision: 20210126 |
| رمز التحديث: | 20231215 |
| DOI: | 10.1038/s41562-020-0886-x |
| PMID: | 32424259 |
| قاعدة البيانات: | MEDLINE |
Find this article in full text from Springer Verlag. 
Full Text Finder | تدمد: | 2397-3374 |
|---|---|
| DOI: | 10.1038/s41562-020-0886-x |