Please wait a minute...
Advances in Psychological Science    2019, Vol. 27 Issue (5) : 905-913     DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2019.00905
Regular Articles |
Probability weighting bias in risky decision making: Psychological mechanism and optimizing strategies
SUN Qingzhou,WU Qingyuan,ZHANG Jing,JIANG Chengming,ZHAO Lei,HU Fengpei()
School of Management, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou 310023, China
Download: PDF(957 KB)   HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks     Supporting Info
Guide   
Abstract  

Probability weighting bias refers to the deviation between the perceived likelihood and the objective likelihood of an event, which affects investment, insurance, doctor-patient communications, etc. The non-compensatory strategy in which people give more weight to “outcomes” than “probabilities”, and the emotional fluctuation induced by the reference point cause probability weighting bias; changing the description of “probabilities”, emotional experience of “outcomes”, reference point of “gains and losses”, and psychological distance from risk, can adjust such bias and optimize decision-making. Future studies need to further explore the issues, such as its application situations, mechanism correlations, and the identification of probability weighting bias.

Keywords probability weighting bias      outcome dimension      probability dimension      reference point      emotional experience      optimizing strategy     
ZTFLH:  B849:C91  
Corresponding Authors: Fengpei HU     E-mail: fengpei@zjut.edu.cn
Issue Date: 20 March 2019
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Qingzhou SUN
Qingyuan WU
Jing ZHANG
Chengming JIANG
Lei ZHAO
Fengpei HU
Cite this article:   
Qingzhou SUN,Qingyuan WU,Jing ZHANG, et al. Probability weighting bias in risky decision making: Psychological mechanism and optimizing strategies[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2019, 27(5): 905-913.
URL:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlkxjz/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2019.00905     OR     http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlkxjz/EN/Y2019/V27/I5/905
  
  
  
[1] 吉仁泽(德) 泽尔腾(德) , ( 2016). 有限理性: 适应性工具箱 (刘永芳译). 清华大学出版社. 北京.
[2] 李纾 . ( 2016). 决策心理: 齐当别之道. 华东师范大学出版社. 上海.
[3] 梁哲, 李纾, 许洁虹 . ( 2007). 预期理论权重函数π的由来, 质疑及Tversky的阐释. 经济数学, 24( 4), 331-340.
[4] 孙庆洲 . ( 2017). 社会距离对概率估计偏差的影响:情绪占优抑或认知占优?(博士学位论文). 华东师范大学. 上海.
[5] 汪祚军, 李纾 . ( 2012). 对整合模型和占优启发式模型的检验: 基于信息加工过程的眼动研究证据. 心理学报, 44( 2), 179-198.
[6] 新浪科技. ( 2018). 滴滴:2017年订单量74.3亿平均每人用滴滴打过5次车. 2018年1月8摘自
url: http://tech.sina.com.cn/i/2018-01-08/doc-ifyqkarr7931333.shtml
[7] 中国消费者协会. ( 2019). 2018年十大消费维权舆情热点. 2019年1月10摘自
url: http://www.cca.org.cn/zxsd/detail/28364.html
[8] 中国新闻网. ( 2018). 女孩滴滴顺风车遇害案被告人被提起公诉案件回顾. 2018年11月17摘自
url: http://www.chinanews.com/sh/2018/11-17/8679360.shtml
[9] Athey S., .( 2017). Beyond prediction: Using big data for policy problems. Science, 355( 6324), 483-485.
url: http://www.sciencemag.org/lookup/doi/10.1126/science.aal4321
[10] Brandstätter E., Gigerenzer G., & Hertwig R . ( 2006). The priority heuristic: Making choices without trade-offs. Psychological Review, 113( 2), 409-432.
url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0033-295X.113.2.409
[11] Brandstätter E., Kühberger A., & Schneider F . ( 2002). A cognitive-emotional account of the shape of the probability weighting function. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15( 2), 79-100.
url: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/bdm.v15%3A2
[12] Diederich A., & Oswald P. , ( 2016). Multi-stage sequential sampling models with finite or infinite time horizon and variable boundaries. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 74, 128-145.
url: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022249616000328
[13] Evans J. S. B. T., Handley S. J., Perham N., Over D. E., & Thompson V. A . ( 2000). Frequency versus probability formats in statistical word problems. Cognition, 77( 3), 197-213.
url: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0010027700000986
[14] Fagerlin A., Zikmund-Fisher B. J., & Ubel P. A . ( 2011). Helping patients decide: Ten steps to better risk communication. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 103( 19), 1436-1443.
url: https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/jnci/djr318
[15] Faro D. & Rottenstreich Y. , ( 2006). Affect, empathy, and regressive mispredictions of others’ preferences under risk. Management Science, 52( 4), 529-541.
url: http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/mnsc.1050.0490
[16] Fisher G. , ( 2017). An attentional drift diffusion model over binary-attribute choice. Cognition, 168, 34-45.
url: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0010027717301695
[17] Fox C. R., & Poldrack R. A . ( 2009). Prospect theory and the brain. Neuroeconomics: Decision Making and the Brain, 145-174.
[18] Gonzalez R. & Wu G. , ( 1999). On the shape of the probability weighting function. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 129-166.
url: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0010028598907101
[19] Hansen J. V., Jacobsen R. H., & Lau M. I . ( 2016). Willingness to pay for insurance in Denmark. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 83( 1), 49-76.
url: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/jori.v83.1
[20] Hey J. D., Morone A., & Schmidt U . ( 2009). Noise and bias in eliciting preferences. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 39( 3), 213-235.
url: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11166-009-9081-1
[21] Kahneman D. & Tversky A. , ( 1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47( 2), 267-291.
[22] Kliger D. & Levy O. , ( 2008). Mood impacts on probability weighting functions: “Large-gamble” evidence. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 37( 4), 1397-1411.
url: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1053535707001825
[23] Lermer E., Streicher B., Sachs R., Raue M., & Frey D . ( 2015). Thinking concrete increases the perceived likelihood of risks: The effect of construal level on risk estimation. Risk Analysis, 36( 3), 623-637.
[24] Lichtenstein S., & Slovic P. , ( 1971). Reversals of preference between bids and choices in gambling decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 8 9(1), 46-55.
[25] Li L. B., He S. H., Li S., Xu J. H., & Rao L. L . ( 2009). A closer look at the Russian roulette problem: A re-examination of the nonlinearity of the prospect theory’s decision weight π. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 50( 3), 515-520.
url: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0888613X0800176X
[26] Li S., . ( 1995). Is there a decision weight π? Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 27( 3), 263-291.
[27] Litchfield J., & Piza C. , ( 2017). Estimating the willingness to pay for tenure security in Brazilian Favelas (working paper series). Department of Economic, University of Sussex.
[28] McGraw A. P., Todorov A., & Kunreuther H . ( 2011). A policy maker’s dilemma: Preventing terrorism or preventing blame. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115( 1), 25-34.
url: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0749597811000185
[29] Mullett T. L., & Stewart N. , ( 2016). Implications of visual attention phenomena for models of preferential choice. Decision, 3( 4), 231-253.
url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/dec0000049
[30] Oudhoff J. P., & Timmermans D. R . ( 2015). The effect of different graphical and numerical likelihood formats on perception of likelihood and choice. Medical Decision Making, 35( 4), 487-500.
url: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X15576487
[31] Pachur T., Hertwig R., & Wolkewitz R . ( 2014). The affect gap in risky choice: Affect-rich outcomes attenuate attention to probability information. Decision, 1( 1), 64-78.
url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/dec0000006
[32] Pachur T., Schulte-Mecklenbeck M., Murphy R. O., & Hertwig R . ( 2018). Prospect theory reflects selective allocation of attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147( 2), 147-169.
url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/xge0000406
[33] Pachur T., Suter R. S., & Hertwig R . ( 2017). How the twain can meet: Prospect theory and models of heuristics in risky choice. Cognitive Psychology, 93, 44-73.
url: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0010028516300093
[34] Pahlke J., Strasser S., & Vieider F. M . ( 2015). Responsibility effects in decision making under risk. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 51( 2), 125-146.
url: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11166-015-9223-6
[35] Prelec D., Seung H. S., & McCoy J . ( 2017). A solution to the single-question crowd wisdom problem. Nature, 541, 532-535.
url: http://www.nature.com/articles/nature21054
[36] Rottenstreich Y., & Hsee C. K . ( 2001). Money, kisses, and electric shocks: On the affective psychology of risk. Psychological Science, 12( 3), 185-190.
url: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9280.00334
[37] Stone E. R., Yates J. F., & Parker A. M . ( 1997). Effects of numerical and graphical displays on professed risk-taking behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3( 4), 243-256.
url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/1076-898X.3.4.243
[38] Sun Q. Z., Liu Y. F., Zhang H. R., & Lu J. Y . ( 2017). Increased social distance makes people more risk-neutral. The Journal of Social Psychology, 157( 4), 502-512.
url: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00224545.2016.1242471
[39] Sun Q. Z., Zhang H. R., Sai L. Y., & Hu F. P . ( 2018). Self-distancing reduces probability-weighting biases. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 611.
url: http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00611
[40] Sun Q. Z., Zhang H. R., Zhang J., & Zhang X. N . ( 2018). Why can’t we accurately predict others’ decisions? Prediction discrepancy in risky decision-making. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2190.
url: https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02190/full
[41] Suter R. S., Pachur T., & Hertwig R . ( 2016). How affect shapes risky choice: Distorted probability weighting versus probability neglect. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 29( 4), 437-449.
url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1888
[42] Suter R. S., Pachur T., Hertwig R., Endestad T., & Biele G . ( 2015). The neural basis of risky choice with affective outcomes. PloS One, 10, e0122475.
url: https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122475
[43] Trautmann S. T., & van de Kuilen G. , ( 2012). Prospect theory or construal level theory? Diminishing sensitivity vs. psychological distance in risky decisions. Acta Psychologica, 139( 1), 254-260.
url: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0001691811001806
[44] Trope Y., & Liberman N. , ( 2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117( 2), 440-463.
url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/a0018963
[45] Tversky A., & Kahneman D. ,( 1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5( 4), 297-323.
url: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/BF00122574
[46] Tyszka T. & Sawicki P. , ( 2011). Affective and cognitive factors influencing sensitivity to probabilistic information. Risk Analysis, 31( 11), 1832-1845.
url: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/risk.2011.31.issue-11
[47] Venkatraman V., Payne J. W., & Huettel S. A . ( 2014). An overall probability of winning heuristic for complex risky decisions: Choice and eye fixation evidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 125( 2), 73-87.
url: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0749597814000491
[48] Wang Z. J., Kuang Y., Tang H. Y., Gao C., Chen A., & Chan K. Q . ( 2018). Are decisions made by group representatives more risk averse? The effect of sense of responsibility. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 31( 3), 311-323.
url: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/bdm.v31.3
[49] Williams L. E., Stein R., & Galguera L . ( 2014). The distinct affective consequences of psychological distance and construal level. Journal of Consumer Research, 40( 6), 1123-1138.
url: https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article-lookup/doi/10.1086/674212
[50] Zipkin D. A., Umscheid C. A., Keating N. L., Allen E., Aung K., Beyth R., .. Feldstein D. A . ( 2014). Evidence-based risk communication: A systematic review. Annals of Internal Medicine, 161( 4), 270-280.
url: http://annals.org/article.aspx?doi=10.7326/M14-0295
[1] SONG Yunqiang; XU Ruiheng; XING Cai. Risk-sensitivity theory: Need motivates risky decision-making[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2017, 25(3): 486-499.
[2] XIONG Guanxing; LI Aimei; WANG X. T.. An Analysis of Wage Gap and Turnover Decisions Based on Tri-Reference Point Theory[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2014, 22(9): 1363-1371.
[3] XIE Xiaofei;LU Jingyi. Double Reference Points in Risky Decision Making[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2014, 22(4): 571-579.
[4] X. T. WANG;WANG Peng. Tri-Reference Point Theory of Decision Making: From Principles to Applications[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2013, 21(8): 1331-1346.
[5] CHEN Jing-Qiu;TANG Ning-Yu;WANG Fang-Hua;Hsee, C. K.. From Hedonomics to Harmonious Consumption[J]. , 2010, 18(07): 1081-1086.
[6] He Guibing, Yu Yongju. Reference Point Effect in the Decision Making Process[J]. , 2006, 14(03): 408-412.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
Copyright © Advances in Psychological Science
Support by Beijing Magtech