Empirical Tests of Intransitivity Predicted by Models of Risky Choice

Recently proposed models of risky choice imply systematic violations of transitivity of preference. Five studies explored whether people show patterns of intransitivity predicted by four descriptive models. To distinguish ?true? violations from those produced by ?error,? a model was fit in which each choice can have a different error rate and each person can have a different pattern of true preferences that need not be transitive. Error rate for a choice is estimated from preference reversals between repeated presentations of the same choice. Results of five studies showed that very few people repeated intransitive patterns. We can retain the hypothesis that transitivity best describes the data of the vast majority of participants. --decision making,errors,gambling effect,reference points,regret,transitivity

Do risk attitudes differ within the group of entrepreneurs?

The notion of risk and entrepreneurship has been widely discussed in the entrepreneurship literature. Starting a business involves risk and requires a risk-taking attitude. Most studies have com-pared entrepreneurs with non-entrepreneurs such as managers or bankers. So far, little research exists on the risk attitudes of different types of entrepreneurs. This study aims to fill this gap. Our particular focus is on the entrepreneurs’ motivations to start their business. The results show that opportunity entrepreneurs are more willing to take risks than necessity entrepreneurs. In addition, entrepreneurs who are motivated by creativity are more risk-tolerant than other entrepreneurs. The study contributes to the literature about risk attitudes of entrepreneurs and to the literature about necessity and opportunity entrepreneurship.Entrepreneurship; Self-employment; Risk attitude; Necessity entrepreneurship; Creativity entrepreneurship

Do People Make Decisions Under Risk Based on Ignorance? An Empirical Test of the Priority Heuristic against Cumulative Prospect Theory

Brandstätter, Gigerenzer and Hertwig (2006) put forward the priority heuristic (PH) as a fast and frugal heuristic for decisions under risk. According to the PH, individuals do not make trade-offs between gains and probabilities, as proposed by expected utility models such as cumulative prospect theory (CPT), but use information in a non-compensatory manner and ignore information. We conducted three studies to test the PH empirically by analyzing individual choice patterns, decision times and information search parameters in diagnostic decision tasks. Results on all three dependent variables conflict with the predictions of the PH and can be better explained by the CPT. The predictive accuracy of the PH was high for decision tasks in which the predic-tions align with the predictions of the CPT but very low for decision tasks in which this was not the case. The findings indicate that earlier results supporting the PH might have been caused by the selection of decision tasks that were not diagnostic for the PH as compared to CPT.Decision Strategy, Fast and Frugal Heuristics, Bounded Rationality, Decision Latency, Process Tracing, Cumulative Prospect Theory

Information Processing in Decisions under Risk: Evidence for Compensatory Strategies based on Automatic Processes

Many everyday decisions have to be made under risk and can be interpreted as choices between gambles with different outcomes that are realized with specific probabilities. The underlying cognitive processes were investigated by testing six sets of hypotheses concerning choices, decision times, and information search derived from cumulative prospect theory, decision field theory, priority heuristic and parallel constraint satisfaction models. Our participants completed forty decision tasks of two gambles with two non-negative outcomes each. Information search was recorded using eye-tracking technology. Results for all dependent measures conflict with the prediction of the non-compensatory priority heuristic and indicate that individuals use compensatory strategies. Choice proportions are well predicted by a cumulative prospect theory. Process measures, however, indicate that individuals do not rely on deliberate calculations of weighted sums. Information integration processes seem to be better explained by models that partially rely on automatic processes such as decision field theory or parallel constraint satisfaction models.Risky Decisions, Cumulative Prospect Theory, Decision Field Theory, Priority Heuristic, Parallel Constraint Satisfaction, Eye Tracking, Intuition

Explaining the Favorite-Longshot Bias: Is it Risk-Love or Misperceptions?

The favorite–long shot bias describes the long-standing empirical regularity that betting odds provide biased estimates of the probability of a horse winning: long shots are overbet whereas favorites are underbet. Neoclassical explanations of this phenomenon focus on rational gamblers who overbet long shots because of risk-love. The competing behavioral explanations emphasize the role of misperceptions of probabilities. We provide novel empirical tests that can discriminate between these competing theories by assessing whether the models that explain gamblers’ choices in one part of their choice set (betting to win) can also rationalize decisions over a wider choice set, including compound bets in the exacta, quinella, or trifecta pools. Using a new, large-scale data set ideally suited to implement these tests, we find evidence in favor of the view that misperceptions of probability drive the favorite–long shot bias, as suggested by prospect theory

A Behavioral and Neural Evaluation of Prospective Decision-Making under Risk

Making the best choice when faced with a chain of decisions requires a person to judge both anticipated outcomes and future actions. Although economic decision-making models account for both risk and reward in single-choice contexts, there is a dearth of similar knowledge about sequential choice. Classical utility-based models assume that decision-makers select and follow an optimal predetermined strategy, regardless of the particular order in which options are presented. An alternative model involves continuously reevaluating decision utilities, without prescribing a specific future set of choices. Here, using behavioral and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data, we studied human subjects in a sequential choice task and use these data to compare alternative decision models of valuation and strategy selection. We provide evidence that subjects adopt a model of reevaluating decision utilities, in which available strategies are continuously updated and combined in assessing action values. We validate this model by using simultaneously acquired fMRI data to show that sequential choice evokes a pattern of neural response consistent with a tracking of anticipated distribution of future reward, as expected in such a model. Thus, brain activity evoked at each decision point reflects the expected mean, variance, and skewness of possible payoffs, consistent with the idea that sequential choice evokes a prospective evaluation of both available strategies and possible outcomes

Board size and corporate risk-taking: Further evidence from Japan

Evidence based on US firms suggests that large boards restrain risk taking. We investigate whether a similar effect exists in Japan. Our results confirm that firms with larger boards exhibit lower performance variability relative to firms with smaller boards. However, this effect is less significant when firms have plenty of investment opportunities, but considerably stronger when firms have few growth options. This new finding is consistent with recent evidence indicating that larger boards are not necessarily detrimental to firm performance. The results are shown to be robust to the endogeneity of board structure and the use of alternative risk measures and estimation methods

Aggregate quasi rents and auditor independence : evidence from audit firm mergers in China

Using a sample of audit firm mergers in China\u27s audit market, this paper provides evidence on the way auditor independence can be improved following audit firm mergers as a result of a change in the aggregate quasi rents that are exposed to risk (i.e., the quasi rents at stake). This setting allows us to examine the relationship between auditor independence and the aggregate quasi rents at stake directly after controlling for the confounding effects of auditor competence, audit firm brand name, and the self-selection problem that may exist in previous studies. We hypothesize that auditors become more independent in the post-merger period only if the mergers increase the aggregate quasi rents at stake. Proxying audit quality by the frequency of modified audit opinions (MAOs) and using a \u27\u27difference-in-differences\u27\u27 research design, we conduct separate tests for two types of mergers under the institutional arrangements in China: one with an increase in the aggregate quasi rents at stake and the other with little change in these rents. Consistent with our hypothesis, we observe an improvement in auditor independence, but only for mergers that increase auditors\u27 aggregate quasi rents at stake. Moreover, the post-merger increase in the propensity for MAOs in this type of merger is positively associated with the magnitude of the change in the aggregate quasi rents at stake. Our empirical findings support the theory that auditor independence is a positive function of the aggregate quasi rents at stake