Stochastic Expected Utility and Prospect Theory in a Horse Race: A Finite Mixture Approach

This study compares the performance of Prospect Theory versus Stochastic Expected Utility Theory at fitting data on decision making under risk. Both theories incorporate well-known deviations from Expected Utility Maximization such as the Allais paradox or the fourfold pattern of risk attitudes. Stochastic Expected Utility Theory parsimoniously extends the standard microeconomic model, whereas Prospect Theory, the benchmark for aggregate choice so far, is based on psychological findings. First, the two theories' fit to representative choice is assessed for two experimental data sets, one Swiss and one Chinese. In a second step, finite mixture regressions reveal a consistent mix of two different behavioral types suggesting that researchers may take individual heterogeneity into account in order to avoid aggregation bias.stochastic expected etility theory, prospect theory, finite mixture models

Happiness Functions with Preference Interdependence and Heterogeneity: The Case of Altruism within the Family

This study investigates the prevalence and extent of altruism by examining the relationship between parents' and their adult children's subjective well-being in a data set extracted from the German Socio-Economic Panel. In order to segregate the share of parents with altruistic preferences from those who are selfish, we estimate a finite mixture regression model. We control for various sources of potential bias by taking advantage of the data's panel structure. To validate our modeling approach we show that predicted altruists indeed make higher average transfer payments.altruism, subjective well-being, finite mixture regression models

Happiness functions with preference interdependence and heterogeneity: the case of altruism within the family

This study investigates the prevalence and extent of altruism by examining the relationship between parents' and their adult children's subjective well-being in a data set extracted from the German Socio-Economic Panel. To segregate the share of parents with altruistic preferences from those who are selfish, we estimate a finite mixture regression model. We control for various sources of potential bias by taking advantage of the data's panel structure. To validate our modeling approach, we show that predicted altruists indeed make higher average transfer payment

Risk and Rationality: Uncovering Heterogeneity in Probability Distortion

It has long been recognized that there is considerable heterogeneity in individual risk taking behavior but little is known about the distribution of risk taking types. We present a parsimonious characterization of risk taking behavior by estimating a finite mixture regression model for three different experimental data sets, two Swiss and one Chinese, over a large number of real gains and losses. We find two distinct types of individuals: In all three data sets, the choices of roughly 80% of the subjects exhibit significant deviations from rational probability weighting consistent with prospect theory. 20% of the subjects weight probabilities linearly and behave essentially as expected value maximizers. Moreover, the individuals are assigned to one of these two groups with probabilities of close to one resulting in a low measure of entropy. The reliability and robustness of our classification suggest using a mix of preference theories in applied economic modeling.individual risk taking behavior, latent heterogeneity, finite mixture regression models

Rationality on the Rise: Why Relative Risk Aversion Increases with Stake Size

How does risk tolerance vary with stake size? This important question cannot be adequately answered if framing effects, nonlinear probability weighting, and heterogeneity of preference types are neglected. We show that, contrary to gains, no coherent change in relative risk aversion is observed for losses. The increase in relative risk aversion over gains cannot be captured by the curvature of the utility function. It is driven predominantly by a change in probability weighting of a majority group of individuals who exhibit more rational probability weighting at high stakes. These results not only challenge expected utility theory, but also prospect theory.Risk Aversion, Stake-Size Effect, Prospect Theory, Latent Heterogeneity

Viewing the future through a warped lens: Why uncertainty generates hyperbolic discounting

A large body of experimental research has demonstrated that, on average, people violate the axioms of expected utility theory as well as of discounted utility theory. In particular, aggregate behavior is best characterized by probability distortions and hyperbolic discounting. But is it the same people who are prone to these behaviors? Based on an experiment with salient monetary incentives we demonstrate that there is a strong and significant relationship between greater departures from linear probability weighting and the degree of decreasing discount rates at the level of individual behavior. We argue that this relationship can be rationalized by the uncertainty inherent in any future event, linking discounting behavior directly to risk preferences. Consequently, decreasing discount rates may be generated by people's proneness to probability distortion

Rationality on the rise: Why relative risk aversion increases with stake size

How does risk tolerance vary with stake size? This important question cannot be adequately answered if framing effects, nonlinear probability weighting, and heterogeneity of preference types are neglected. We show that the observed increase in relative risk aversion over gains cannot be captured by the curvature of the value function. Rather, it is predominantly driven by a change in probability weighting of a majority group of individuals who weight probabilities of high gains more conservatively. Contrary to gains, no coherent change in relative risk aversion is observed for losses. These results not only challenge expected utility theory, but also prospect theor

Risk and Rationality: The Relative Importance of Probability Weighting and Choice Set Dependence

The literature suggests that probability weighting and choice set dependence in- fluence risky choices. However, their relative importance remains an open question. We present a joint test that uses binary choices between lotteries provoking Common Consequence and Common Ratio Allais Paradoxes and manipulates their joint payoff distribution. We show non-parametrically that probability weighting and choice set dependence both play a role at describing aggregate choices. To parsimoniously account for heterogeneity, we also estimate a structural model using a finite mixture approach. The model uncovers substantial heterogeneity and classifies subjects into three types: 38% Prospect Theory types whose choices are predominantly driven by probability weighting, 34% Salience Theory types whose choices are predominantly driven by choice set dependence, and 28% Expected Utility Theory types. The model predicts type-specific differences in the frequency of preference reversals out-of-sample, i.e., in choices with a different context than the ones used for estimating the model. Moreover, the out-of-sample predictions indicate that the choice context shapes the influence of choice set dependence

Spillovers of Prosocial Motivation: Evidence from an Intervention Study on Blood Donors

Blood donations are increasingly important for medical procedures, while meeting demand is challenging. This paper studies the role of spillovers arising from social interactions in the context of voluntary blood donations. We analyze a large scale intervention among pairs of blood donors who live at the same street address. A quasi-random phone call provides the instrument for identifying the extent to which the propensity to donate spills over within these pairs. Spillovers transmit 41% to 46% of the behavioral impulse from one donor to the peer. This creates a significant social multiplier, ranging between 1.7 and 1.85. There is no evidence that these spillovers lead to intertemporal substitution. Taken together, our findings indicate that policy interventions have a substantially larger effect when targeted towards pairs instead of isolated individuals