Prospect relativity: How choice options influence decision under risk

In many theories of decision under risk (e.g., expected utility theory, rank-dependent utility theory, and prospect theory), the utility of a prospect is independent of other options in the choice set. The experiments presented here show a large effect of the available options, suggesting instead that prospects are valued relative to one another. The judged certainty equivalent for a prospect is strongly influenced by the options available. Similarly, the selection of a preferred prospect is strongly influenced by the prospects available, Alternative theories of decision under risk (e.g., the stochastic difference model, multialternative decision field theory, and range frequency theory), where prospects are valued relative to one another, can provide an account of these context effects

Measuring loss aversion under ambiguity: a method to make prospect theory completely observable

We propose a simple, parameter-free method that, for the first time, makes it possible to completely observe Tversky and Kahneman’s (1992) prospect theory. While methods exist to measure event weighting and the utility for gains and losses separately, there was no method to measure loss aversion under ambiguity. Our method allows this and thereby it can measure prospect theory’s entire utility function. Consequently, we can properly identify properties of utility and perform new tests of prospect theory. We implemented our method in an experiment and obtained support for prospect theory. Utility was concave for gains and convex for losses and there was substantial loss aversion. Both utility and loss aversion were the same for risk and ambiguity, as assumed by prospect theory, and sign-comonotonic trade-off consistency, the central condition of prospect theory, held

Extensive population genetic structure in the giraffe

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>A central question in the evolutionary diversification of large, widespread, mobile mammals is how substantial differentiation can arise, particularly in the absence of topographic or habitat barriers to dispersal. All extant giraffes (<it>Giraffa camelopardalis</it>) are currently considered to represent a single species classified into multiple subspecies. However, geographic variation in traits such as pelage pattern is clearly evident across the range in sub-Saharan Africa and abrupt transition zones between different pelage types are typically not associated with extrinsic barriers to gene flow, suggesting reproductive isolation.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>By analyzing mitochondrial DNA sequences and nuclear microsatellite loci, we show that there are at least six genealogically distinct lineages of giraffe in Africa, with little evidence of interbreeding between them. Some of these lineages appear to be maintained in the absence of contemporary barriers to gene flow, possibly by differences in reproductive timing or pelage-based assortative mating, suggesting that populations usually recognized as subspecies have a long history of reproductive isolation. Further, five of the six putative lineages also contain genetically discrete populations, yielding at least 11 genetically distinct populations.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Such extreme genetic subdivision within a large vertebrate with high dispersal capabilities is unprecedented and exceeds that of any other large African mammal. Our results have significant implications for giraffe conservation, and imply separate <it>in situ </it>and <it>ex situ </it>management, not only of pelage morphs, but also of local populations.</p

Can a single model account for both risky choices and inter-temporal choices? Testing the assumptions underlying models of risky inter-temporal choice

There is growing interest in modelling how people make choices that involve both risks and delays, i.e., risky inter-temporal choices. We investigated an untested assumption underlying several proposed risky inter-temporal choice models: that pure risky choices and pure inter-temporal choices are special cases of risky inter-temporal choice. We tested this assumption by presenting a single group of participants with risky choices and inter-temporal choices. We then compared the performance of a model that is fit to both choice types simultaneously, with the performance of separate models fit to the risky choice and inter-temporal choice data. We find, using Bayesian model comparison, that the majority of participants are best fit by a single model that incorporates both risky and inter-temporal choices. This result supports the assumption that risky choices and inter-temporal choices may be special cases of risky inter-temporal choice. Our results also suggest that, under the conditions of our experiment, interpretation of monetary value is very similar in risky choices and inter-temporal choices