Abstract:According to classical utility theory the valuation of any lottery should depend only on its outcomes and their respective probabilities, and should not be affected by the nature, complexity and structure of the chance mechanism. Previous research has documented systematic violations of this principle. For example, most subjects prefer lotteries in which the payoffs are contingent on the joint occurrence of multiple (high probability) events to simple lotteries, and lotteries in which the earlier stages offer higher probabilities than the later stages. We review the various violations of this principle and suggest a classification into two major types associated with misunderstanding of chance mechanisms and attitude towards the chance mechanism and process. In the present study 40 subjects were presented with 30 pairs of binary gambles. In any given pair the lotteries had identical outcomes and equal ‘reduced’ probabilities (and thus equal expected values). However, the chance mechanisms varied along a variety of factors such as the size of the sample space, the number of stages, temporal ordering, order of probabilities, their transparency and time constraints. Half the subjects saw lotteries involving gains and the other half considered only losses. After choosing one lottery in each pair, the subjects were asked to explain and justify their choices. The findings revealed systematic violations of the reducibility principle: subjects displayed a preference for lotteries with larger sample spaces, and for lotteries that allow quicker resolutions in the earlier stages. A clear distinction between some patterns of preferences in the gains and loss domains was revealed. In gambles involving gains subjects preferred to have the highest probability on the first stage (and the lowest probability on the last stage), but displayed the opposite preferences for losses. A content analysis of the subjects' stated reasons for their choices identified eight major categories. The most frequently invoked were hope, fun, simplicity, stress and time. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

An Additional Gain Can Make You Feel Bad and an Additional Loss Can Make You Feel Good

Myopic Loss Aversion or Equate-to-differentiate Heuristic? A Heuristic Decision Making Model for Both Single and Aggregated Plays.

Better is Worse, Worse is Better: Reexamination of Violations of Dominance in Intertemporal Choice

Reconciling Loss Aversion and Gain Seeking in Judged Emotions

Advantageous Inequity Aversion Does Not Always Exist: the Role of Determining Allocations Modulates Preferences for Advantageous Inequity

When is More Better?

Cultural Value as a Form of Currency

Looming Large or Seeming Small? Attitudes Towards Losses in a Representative Sample

Diverging Effects of Subjective Prospect Values of Uncertain Time and Money

Assessing “Economic Value”

Probabilistic Outcomes Are Valued Less in Expectation, Even Conditional on Their Realization

The Ending Effect in the Domain of Gambling: The Effect of Gain-Loss Status on Economic Decision-Making

The Countability Effect: Comparative Versus Experiential Reactions to Reward Distributions

When (and why) absolute decision attribute values influence human preferences

Are monetary gifts negatively labeled? Material benefits and prosocial motivation evaluation

I endeavor to make it: effort increases valuation of subsequent monetary reward.

Probability discounting of environmental gains: do we multiply or add up?

The anticipated regret of a lost opportunity: When adding a second‐period incentive reduces the appeal of a one‐period promotion

The Divergent Impact of Reward Magnitude on Goal Eagerness and Effort Investment

A Further Exploration of the Uncertainty Effect

The same but different: an empirical investigation of the reducibility principle