Abstract:Reports an error in "Magnitude effects in preference reversals" by Yong Lu and Marek Nieznański ( Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics , 2021[Sep], Vol 14[3], 149-184). In the article, the authors analyzed the data by applying an inappropriate statistical methodology, the Kruskal–Wallis analysis of variance by ranks, for mixed-subjects comparisons (i.e., one sample group of 57 participants vs. another two sample groups of 39 and 41 participants) in the "The Choice Task" and "Predicted and Unpredicted PR" sections of Experiment 1. The authors reanalyzed the data by regrouping the sample groups and by applying an appropriate statistical methodology, the Wilcoxon rank sum test with continuity corrections. The results yielded the same conclusions as reported. Changes have been made in the Results section to the last paragraph under "The Choice Task" and the first paragraph under "Predicted and Unpredicted PR" to update these sections with the correct results for Experiment 1. The online version of this article has been corrected. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2021-91176-003.) The finding that individual preferences are systematically inconsistent under different but formally equivalent modes of information processing is called the preference reversal (PR). The present research extended previously limited studies on magnitude effects of gains on PR by examining this effect with both gains and losses. Experiment 1 progressively manipulated the payoff variations in bet pairs to measure the effect of ratio scales on risk preferences and PR. Undergraduates (N = 137) were asked to choose a bet they prefer from a list of bet pairs, and then to evaluate the bets indicating how much they were willing to pay for a chance to participate in each of the bets. We observed a robust dichotomous pattern of choice behavior: The majority of choices are consistent with risk aversion or risk-seeking behavior when loss ratios between bet pairs are low and high, respectively. Moreover, different patterns of PR can be elicited with these loss stakes. Experiment 2 examined the predictions of three decision-making heuristics, namely a novel simplified approach called the loss-averse rule, the majority rule, and the equate-to-differentiate rule, as well as cumulative prospect theory that individuals may use in binary choice. Participants (N = 113) were asked to choose a bet from a list of bet pairs. We found that when the loss ratio is high, proportions of choices were in the direction predicted by cumulative prospect theory and the loss-averse rule of decision rather than by the other two rules, at both the conditional and aggregate levels. These results may suggest that when loss risk reaches a level of threshold, risk behavior for binary choices on lotteries is ubiquitously influenced by loss aversion. The overall results indicate the fragile, context-dependent nature of PR phenomenon. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)

Stability of risk preferences and the reflection effect of prospect theory

Reference-Point Theory: An Account of Individual Differences in Risk Preferences

Risk Preference: A View from Psychology

Three gaps and what they may mean for risk preference

The Importance of Risk Preference Parameters in Prospect Theory: Evidence from Mutual Fund Flows

Comparative risk aversion in two periods: An application to self‐insurance and self‐protection

Correction to "Magnitude effects in preference reversals" by Lu and Nieznański (2021).

New developments in revealed preference theory: decisions under risk, uncertainty, and intertemporal choice

Behavioral Biases and Nonadditive Dynamics in Risk Taking: An Experimental Investigation

An agent-based model of repeated decision making under risk: modeling the role of alternate reference points and risk behavior on long-run outcomes

Rapid Changes in Risk Preferences Originate from Bayesian Inference on Parietal Magnitude Representations

The Price of Predictability: Estimating Inconsistency Premiums in Social Interactions

Individual differences in a switch from risk-averse preferences for gains to risk-seeking preferences for losses: can personality variables predict the risk preferences?

Can Prospect Theory Explain the Disposition Effect? A New Perspective on Reference Points

Replicating patterns of prospect theory for decision under risk

Risk Aversion in Non-Ergodic Systems

KL.02 The European First Episode Schizophrenia Trial: are all antipsychotics created equal?

The Relative Importance of the Contrast and Assimilation Effects in Decisions Under Risk

“Bayesian anchoring” and the fourfold pattern of risk attitudes

Are decisions under risk malleable?

Does Risk Aversion Vary with Decision‐Frame? An Empirical Test Using Recent Game Show Data