This paper presents a critique of expected utility theory as a descriptive model of decision making under risk, and develops an alternative model, called prospect theory. Choices among risky prospects exhibit several pervasive effects that are inconsistent with the basic tenets of utility theory. In particular, people underweight outcomes that are merely probable in comparison with outcomes that are obtained with certainty. This tendency, called the certainty effect, contributes to risk aversion in choices involving sure gains and to risk seeking in choices involving sure losses. In addition, people generally discard components that are shared by all prospects under consideration. This tendency, called the isolation effect, leads to inconsistent preferences when the same choice is presented in different forms. An alternative theory of choice is developed, in which value is assigned to gains and losses rather than to final assets and in which probabilities are replaced by decision weights. The value function is normally concave for gains, commonly convex for losses, and is generally steeper for losses than for gains. Decision weights are generally lower than the corresponding probabilities, except in the range of low prob- abilities. Overweighting of low probabilities may contribute to the attractiveness of both insurance and gambling. EXPECTED UTILITY THEORY has dominated the analysis of decision making under risk. It has been generally accepted as a normative model of rational choice (24), and widely applied as a descriptive model of economic behavior, e.g. (15, 4). Thus, it is assumed that all reasonable people would wish to obey the axioms of the theory (47, 36), and that most people actually do, most of the time. The present paper describes several classes of choice problems in which preferences systematically violate the axioms of expected utility theory. In the light of these observations we argue that utility theory, as it is commonly interpreted and applied, is not an adequate descriptive model and we propose an alternative account of choice under risk. 2. CRITIQUE

/pdf/prospect-theory-an-analysis-of-decision-under-risk-4z6oysdahj.pdf

Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk

The psychological principles that govern the perception of decision problems and the evaluation of probabilities and outcomes produce predictable shifts of preference when the same problem is framed in different ways. Reversals of preference are demonstrated in choices regarding monetary outcomes, both hypothetical and real, and in questions pertaining to the loss of human lives. The effects of frames on preferences are compared to the effects of perspectives on perceptual appearance. The dependence of preferences on the formulation of decision problems is a significant concern for the theory of rational choice.

/pdf/the-framing-of-decisions-and-the-psychology-of-choice-v0lj39qgmd.pdf

The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice

Studies of risk perception examine the judgements people make when they are asked to characterize and evaluate hazardous activities and technologies. This research aims to aid risk analysis and policy-making by providing a basis for understanding and anticipating public responses to hazards and improving the communication of risk information among lay people, technical experts, and decision-makers. This work assumes that those who promote and regulate health and safety need to understand how people think about and respond to risk. Without such understanding, well-intended policies may be ineffective.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/236/4799/280.full.pdf

Perception of risk.

The primary purpose of this article is to clarify the nature of the entrepreneurial orientation (EO) construct and to propose a contingency framework for investigating the relationship between EO and firm performance. We first explore and refine the dimensions of EO and discuss the usefulness of viewing a firm's EO as a multidimensional construct. Then, drawing on examples from the EO-related contingencies literature, we suggest alternative models (moderating effects, mediating effects, independent effects, interaction effects) for testing the EO-performance relationship.

Clarifying the Entrepreneurial Orientation Construct and Linking It To Performance

We build on an emerging strategy literature that views the firm as a bundle of resources and capabilities, and examine conditions that contribute to the realization of sustainable economic rents. Because of (1) resource-market imperfections and (2) discretionary managerial decisions about resource development and deployment, we expect firms to differ (in and out of equilibrium) in the resources and capabilities they control. This asymmetry in turn can be a source of sustainable economic rent. The paper focuses on the linkages between the industry analysis framework, the resource-based view of the firm, behavioral decision biases and organizational implementation issues. It connects the concept of Strategic Industry Factors at the market level with the notion of Strategic Assets at the firm level. Organizational rent is shown to stem from imperfect and discretionary decisions to develop and deploy selected resources and capabilities, made by boundedly rational managers facing high uncertainty, complexity, and intrafirm conflict.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2486548.pdf

Strategic assets and organizational rent

People are often overconfident in evaluating the correctness of their knowledge. The present studies investigated the possibility that assessment of confidence is biased by attempts to justify one's chosen answer. These attempts include selectively focusing on evidence supporting the chosen answer and disregarding evidence contradicting it. Experiment 1 presented subjects with two-alternative questions and required them to list reasons for and against each of the alternatives prior to choosing an answer and assessing the probability of its being correct. This procedure produced a marked improvement in the appropriateness of confidence judgments. Experiment 2 simplified the manipulation by asking subjects first to choose an answer and then to list (a) one reason supporting that choice, (b) one reason contradicting it, or (c) one reason supporting and one reason contradicting. Only the listing of contradicting reasons improved the appropriateness of confidence. Correlational analyses of the data of Experiment 1 strongly suggested that the confidence depends on the amount and strength of the evidence supporting the answer chosen.

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory

One of the fundamental questions addressed by risk-benefit analysis is “How safe is safe enough?” Chauncey Starr has proposed that economic data be used to reveal patterns of acceptable risk-benefit tradeoffs. The present study investigates an alternative technique, in which psychometric procedures were used to elicit quantitative judgments of perceived risk, acceptable risk, and perceived benefit for each of 30 activities and technologies. The participants were seventy-six members of the League of Women Voters. The results indicated little systematic relationship between perceived existing risks and benefits of the 30 risk items. Current risk levels were generally viewed as unacceptably high. When current risk levels were adjusted to what would be considered acceptable risk levels, however, risk was found to correlate with benefit. Nine descriptive attributes of risk were also studied. These nine attributes seemed to tap two basic dimensions of risk. These dimensions proved to be effective predictors of the tradeoff between acceptable risk and perceived benefit. The limitations of the present study and the relationship between this technique and Starr's technique are discussed, along with the implications of the findings for policy decisions.

How safe is safe enough? a psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits

From the subjectivist point of view (de Finetti, 1937/1964), a probability is a degree of belief in a proposition. It expresses a purely internal state; there is no “right,” “correct,” or “objective” probability residing somewhere “in reality” against which one's degree of belief can be compared. In many circumstances, however, it may become possible to verify the truth or falsity of the proposition to which a probability was attached. Today, one assesses the probability of the proposition “it will rain tomorrow.” Tomorrow, one looks at the rain gauge to see whether or not it has rained. When possible, such verification can be used to determine the adequacy of probability assessments. Winkler and Murphy (1968b) have identified two kinds of “goodness” in probability assessments: normative goodness, which reflects the degree to which assessments express the assessor's true beliefs and conform to the axioms of probability theory, and substantive goodness, which reflects the amount of knowledge of the topic area contained in the assessments. This chapter reviews the literature concerning yet another aspect of goodness, called calibration. If a person assesses the probability of a proposition being true as .7 and later finds that the proposition is false, that in itself does not invalidate the assessment. However, if a judge assigns .7 to 10,000 independent propositions, only 25 of which subsequently are found to be true, there is something wrong with these assessments.

Calibration of probabilities: the state of the art to 1980

: This report provides a critical overview to work, its applicability and directions for further research. As might be expected with a burgeoning, multi-disciplinary field, it is difficult to keep track of all that is done and to draw the implications of research done in one discipline for research done in another. This report surveys the entire field asking, (1) what is known. (2) what good is it. and (3) what else must we learn. Particular attention is given to work integrating research describing how people do make decisions with normative work that prescribes how people should make decisions.

/pdf/behavioral-decision-theory-3kz4cmawep.pdf

Baruch Fischhoff

Papers

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory

How safe is safe enough? a psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits

Calibration of probabilities: the state of the art to 1980

Behavioral Decision Theory

Hindsight is not equal to foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty.