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)

A closer examination of the risk–reward correlation: an individual-level analysis and exploration in the loss domain

Riskier for Me or for Others? the Role of Domain and Probability in Self-Other Differences, in Risky Decision-Making

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

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

Are decisions under risk malleable?

The neural correlates of subjective utility of monetary outcome and probability weight in economic and in motor decision under risk

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

The case of 'Less is more': Modelling risk-preference with Expected Downside Risk

Good fortune but bad luck? Predictable versus unpredictable gains and losses in risky choice

Risk-taking is associated with decreased subjective value signals and increased prediction error signals in the hot Columbia Card Task

How Consideration of Future Consequences, Prior Gain or Loss, Personal Risk Profile, and Justification Affect Risk–Payoff Preferences

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

Real and hypothetical monetary rewards modulate risk taking in the brain

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

Eliciting Public Risk Preferences in Emergency Situations

Staying Ahead and Getting Even: Risk Attitudes of Experienced Poker Players

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

Rationality and Psychological Accuracy of Risky Choice Models Based on Option- vs. Dimension-Wise Evaluations

Studies in subjective probability l: Prediction of random events

Risk preferences over health: empirical estimates and implications for medical decision-making

Multiple and subject-specific roles of uncertainty in reward-guided decision-making