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.

Risk Preferences in Time Lotteries

Risk and Intertemporal Preferences over Time Lotteries

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

Are decisions under risk malleable?

Delayed risk in individual and social decisions

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

Investment Decisions and Time Horizon: Risk Perception and Risk Behavior in Repeated Gambles

Approximate optimality and the risk/reward tradeoff given repeated gambles

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

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

Reduction of compound lotteries with objective probabilities: Theory and evidence

Risk Aversion, Indivisible Timing Options, and Gambling

Ambiguity Attitudes over Time

What Drives Demand for State-Run Lotteries? Evidence and Welfare Implications

General probability-time tradeoff and intertemporal risk-value model.

Distinguishing Risk Preferences using Repeated Gambles

How do we evaluate future gambles? Experimental evidence on path dependency in risky intertemporal choice

Diverging Effects of Subjective Prospect Values of Uncertain Time and Money

An Empirical Study on Intertemporal Decision Making Under Risk

Ergodicity-breaking reveals time optimal decision making in humans

Now for sure or later with a risk? Modeling risky intertemporal choice as accumulated preference.