Replicating patterns of prospect theory for decision under risk

Prospect theory is among the most influential frameworks in behavioural science, specifically in research on decision-making under risk. Kahneman and Tversky’s 1979 study tested financial choices under risk, concluding that such judgements deviate significantly from the assumptions of expected utili...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Nature human behaviour 2020-06, Vol.4 (6), p.622-633
Hauptverfasser: Ruggeri, Kai, Alí, Sonia, Berge, Mari Louise, Bertoldo, Giulia, Bjørndal, Ludvig D., Cortijos-Bernabeu, Anna, Davison, Clair, Demić, Emir, Esteban-Serna, Celia, Friedemann, Maja, Gibson, Shannon P., Jarke, Hannes, Karakasheva, Ralitsa, Khorrami, Peggah R., Kveder, Jakob, Andersen, Thomas Lind, Lofthus, Ingvild S., McGill, Lucy, Nieto, Ana E., Pérez, Jacobo, Quail, Sahana K., Rutherford, Charlotte, Tavera, Felice L., Tomat, Nastja, Reyn, Chiara Van, Većkalov, Bojana, Wang, Keying, Yosifova, Aleksandra, Papa, Francesca, Rubaltelli, Enrico, Linden, Sander van der, Folke, Tomas
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 633
container_issue 6
container_start_page 622
container_title Nature human behaviour
container_volume 4
creator Ruggeri, Kai
Alí, Sonia
Berge, Mari Louise
Bertoldo, Giulia
Bjørndal, Ludvig D.
Cortijos-Bernabeu, Anna
Davison, Clair
Demić, Emir
Esteban-Serna, Celia
Friedemann, Maja
Gibson, Shannon P.
Jarke, Hannes
Karakasheva, Ralitsa
Khorrami, Peggah R.
Kveder, Jakob
Andersen, Thomas Lind
Lofthus, Ingvild S.
McGill, Lucy
Nieto, Ana E.
Pérez, Jacobo
Quail, Sahana K.
Rutherford, Charlotte
Tavera, Felice L.
Tomat, Nastja
Reyn, Chiara Van
Većkalov, Bojana
Wang, Keying
Yosifova, Aleksandra
Papa, Francesca
Rubaltelli, Enrico
Linden, Sander van der
Folke, Tomas
description Prospect theory is among the most influential frameworks in behavioural science, specifically in research on decision-making under risk. Kahneman and Tversky’s 1979 study tested financial choices under risk, concluding that such judgements deviate significantly from the assumptions of expected utility theory, which had remarkable impacts on science, policy and industry. Though substantial evidence supports prospect theory, many presumed canonical theories have drawn scrutiny for recent replication failures. In response, we directly test the original methods in a multinational study ( n  = 4,098 participants, 19 countries, 13 languages), adjusting only for current and local currencies while requiring all participants to respond to all items. The results replicated for 94% of items, with some attenuation. Twelve of 13 theoretical contrasts replicated, with 100% replication in some countries. Heterogeneity between countries and intra-individual variation highlight meaningful avenues for future theorizing and applications. We conclude that the empirical foundations for prospect theory replicate beyond any reasonable thresholds. In a sample of over 4,000 participants from 19 countries, the core patterns from a highly influential study on behaviour and decision-making broadly replicate, with only minor exceptions and somewhat smaller effect sizes.
doi_str_mv 10.1038/s41562-020-0886-x
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2404640962</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2404640962</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c481t-d87522639bc0f23cd12ca96232f9e7262944879fc61e01d1de08ee1746127b783</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kE1LAzEQhoMottT-AC8S8OJlNZOkyeYkUvyCgiB6DtvsbN3a7q7JLrT_3pStHwiSwwTyzJuZh5BTYJfARHoVJEwUTxhnCUtTlWwOyJALoxMhtDz8dR-QcQhLxhgYIY1Wx2QguIxnYobk-hmbVemytqwWtMnaFn0VaF3QxtehQdfS9g1rv6VF7WmOrgxlXdGuytFTX4b3E3JUZKuA430dkde725fpQzJ7un-c3swSJ1NokzzVE86VMHPHCi5cDtxlRnHBC4OaK26kTLUpnAJkkEOOLEUELRVwPdepGJGLPjfO9dFhaO26DA5Xq6zCuguWSyaVZLvIETn_gy7rzldxukiBNAAaRKSgp1xcNHgsbOPLdea3FpjdCba9YBsF251gu4k9Z_vkbr7G_LvjS2cEeA-E-FQt0P98_X_qJ4AQhFQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2414911713</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Replicating patterns of prospect theory for decision under risk</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><source>Nature</source><creator>Ruggeri, Kai ; Alí, Sonia ; Berge, Mari Louise ; Bertoldo, Giulia ; Bjørndal, Ludvig D. ; Cortijos-Bernabeu, Anna ; Davison, Clair ; Demić, Emir ; Esteban-Serna, Celia ; Friedemann, Maja ; Gibson, Shannon P. ; Jarke, Hannes ; Karakasheva, Ralitsa ; Khorrami, Peggah R. ; Kveder, Jakob ; Andersen, Thomas Lind ; Lofthus, Ingvild S. ; McGill, Lucy ; Nieto, Ana E. ; Pérez, Jacobo ; Quail, Sahana K. ; Rutherford, Charlotte ; Tavera, Felice L. ; Tomat, Nastja ; Reyn, Chiara Van ; Većkalov, Bojana ; Wang, Keying ; Yosifova, Aleksandra ; Papa, Francesca ; Rubaltelli, Enrico ; Linden, Sander van der ; Folke, Tomas</creator><creatorcontrib>Ruggeri, Kai ; Alí, Sonia ; Berge, Mari Louise ; Bertoldo, Giulia ; Bjørndal, Ludvig D. ; Cortijos-Bernabeu, Anna ; Davison, Clair ; Demić, Emir ; Esteban-Serna, Celia ; Friedemann, Maja ; Gibson, Shannon P. ; Jarke, Hannes ; Karakasheva, Ralitsa ; Khorrami, Peggah R. ; Kveder, Jakob ; Andersen, Thomas Lind ; Lofthus, Ingvild S. ; McGill, Lucy ; Nieto, Ana E. ; Pérez, Jacobo ; Quail, Sahana K. ; Rutherford, Charlotte ; Tavera, Felice L. ; Tomat, Nastja ; Reyn, Chiara Van ; Većkalov, Bojana ; Wang, Keying ; Yosifova, Aleksandra ; Papa, Francesca ; Rubaltelli, Enrico ; Linden, Sander van der ; Folke, Tomas</creatorcontrib><description>Prospect theory is among the most influential frameworks in behavioural science, specifically in research on decision-making under risk. Kahneman and Tversky’s 1979 study tested financial choices under risk, concluding that such judgements deviate significantly from the assumptions of expected utility theory, which had remarkable impacts on science, policy and industry. Though substantial evidence supports prospect theory, many presumed canonical theories have drawn scrutiny for recent replication failures. In response, we directly test the original methods in a multinational study ( n  = 4,098 participants, 19 countries, 13 languages), adjusting only for current and local currencies while requiring all participants to respond to all items. The results replicated for 94% of items, with some attenuation. Twelve of 13 theoretical contrasts replicated, with 100% replication in some countries. Heterogeneity between countries and intra-individual variation highlight meaningful avenues for future theorizing and applications. We conclude that the empirical foundations for prospect theory replicate beyond any reasonable thresholds. In a sample of over 4,000 participants from 19 countries, the core patterns from a highly influential study on behaviour and decision-making broadly replicate, with only minor exceptions and somewhat smaller effect sizes.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2397-3374</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2397-3374</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1038/s41562-020-0886-x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32424259</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Nature Publishing Group UK</publisher><subject>4014/159 ; 4014/477 ; 4014/477/2811 ; Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Behavioral Sciences ; Biomedical and Life Sciences ; Cross-Cultural Comparison ; Decision Making ; Exceptions ; Expected utility ; Experimental Psychology ; Female ; Humans ; Individual differences ; Kahneman, Daniel (1934-2024) ; Life Sciences ; Male ; Microeconomics ; Middle Aged ; Neurosciences ; Personality and Social Psychology ; Prospect theory ; Psychological Theory ; Reproducibility of Results ; Risk ; Risk-Taking ; Scrutiny ; Theory ; Thresholds ; Utility theory ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Nature human behaviour, 2020-06, Vol.4 (6), p.622-633</ispartof><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited 2020</rights><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited 2020.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c481t-d87522639bc0f23cd12ca96232f9e7262944879fc61e01d1de08ee1746127b783</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c481t-d87522639bc0f23cd12ca96232f9e7262944879fc61e01d1de08ee1746127b783</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-4965-1173 ; 0000-0002-7521-755X ; 0000-0002-8477-1261 ; 0000-0002-5931-7243 ; 0000-0002-6022-6381 ; 0000-0003-1309-6075 ; 0000-0001-9773-8287 ; 0000-0002-9828-8174 ; 0000-0002-6960-3980 ; 0000-0003-1179-5921 ; 0000-0002-1100-2525 ; 0000-0002-9798-2666 ; 0000-0003-1506-2135 ; 0000-0002-4487-3757 ; 0000-0002-5237-7489 ; 0000-0002-0269-1744 ; 0000-0002-4220-1674 ; 0000-0002-8470-101X ; 0000-0002-0702-2806 ; 0000-0001-5767-1540 ; 0000-0002-9284-4918 ; 0000-0001-6768-8426</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1038/s41562-020-0886-x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1038/s41562-020-0886-x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904,41467,42536,51297</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32424259$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ruggeri, Kai</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alí, Sonia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Berge, Mari Louise</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bertoldo, Giulia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bjørndal, Ludvig D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cortijos-Bernabeu, Anna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davison, Clair</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Demić, Emir</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Esteban-Serna, Celia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Friedemann, Maja</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gibson, Shannon P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jarke, Hannes</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Karakasheva, Ralitsa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khorrami, Peggah R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kveder, Jakob</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Andersen, Thomas Lind</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lofthus, Ingvild S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McGill, Lucy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nieto, Ana E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pérez, Jacobo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Quail, Sahana K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rutherford, Charlotte</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tavera, Felice L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tomat, Nastja</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reyn, Chiara Van</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Većkalov, Bojana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Keying</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yosifova, Aleksandra</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Papa, Francesca</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rubaltelli, Enrico</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Linden, Sander van der</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Folke, Tomas</creatorcontrib><title>Replicating patterns of prospect theory for decision under risk</title><title>Nature human behaviour</title><addtitle>Nat Hum Behav</addtitle><addtitle>Nat Hum Behav</addtitle><description>Prospect theory is among the most influential frameworks in behavioural science, specifically in research on decision-making under risk. Kahneman and Tversky’s 1979 study tested financial choices under risk, concluding that such judgements deviate significantly from the assumptions of expected utility theory, which had remarkable impacts on science, policy and industry. Though substantial evidence supports prospect theory, many presumed canonical theories have drawn scrutiny for recent replication failures. In response, we directly test the original methods in a multinational study ( n  = 4,098 participants, 19 countries, 13 languages), adjusting only for current and local currencies while requiring all participants to respond to all items. The results replicated for 94% of items, with some attenuation. Twelve of 13 theoretical contrasts replicated, with 100% replication in some countries. Heterogeneity between countries and intra-individual variation highlight meaningful avenues for future theorizing and applications. We conclude that the empirical foundations for prospect theory replicate beyond any reasonable thresholds. In a sample of over 4,000 participants from 19 countries, the core patterns from a highly influential study on behaviour and decision-making broadly replicate, with only minor exceptions and somewhat smaller effect sizes.</description><subject>4014/159</subject><subject>4014/477</subject><subject>4014/477/2811</subject><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Behavioral Sciences</subject><subject>Biomedical and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Cross-Cultural Comparison</subject><subject>Decision Making</subject><subject>Exceptions</subject><subject>Expected utility</subject><subject>Experimental Psychology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Individual differences</subject><subject>Kahneman, Daniel (1934-2024)</subject><subject>Life Sciences</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Microeconomics</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Neurosciences</subject><subject>Personality and Social Psychology</subject><subject>Prospect theory</subject><subject>Psychological Theory</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Risk</subject><subject>Risk-Taking</subject><subject>Scrutiny</subject><subject>Theory</subject><subject>Thresholds</subject><subject>Utility theory</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>2397-3374</issn><issn>2397-3374</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kE1LAzEQhoMottT-AC8S8OJlNZOkyeYkUvyCgiB6DtvsbN3a7q7JLrT_3pStHwiSwwTyzJuZh5BTYJfARHoVJEwUTxhnCUtTlWwOyJALoxMhtDz8dR-QcQhLxhgYIY1Wx2QguIxnYobk-hmbVemytqwWtMnaFn0VaF3QxtehQdfS9g1rv6VF7WmOrgxlXdGuytFTX4b3E3JUZKuA430dkde725fpQzJ7un-c3swSJ1NokzzVE86VMHPHCi5cDtxlRnHBC4OaK26kTLUpnAJkkEOOLEUELRVwPdepGJGLPjfO9dFhaO26DA5Xq6zCuguWSyaVZLvIETn_gy7rzldxukiBNAAaRKSgp1xcNHgsbOPLdea3FpjdCba9YBsF251gu4k9Z_vkbr7G_LvjS2cEeA-E-FQt0P98_X_qJ4AQhFQ</recordid><startdate>20200601</startdate><enddate>20200601</enddate><creator>Ruggeri, Kai</creator><creator>Alí, Sonia</creator><creator>Berge, Mari Louise</creator><creator>Bertoldo, Giulia</creator><creator>Bjørndal, Ludvig D.</creator><creator>Cortijos-Bernabeu, Anna</creator><creator>Davison, Clair</creator><creator>Demić, Emir</creator><creator>Esteban-Serna, Celia</creator><creator>Friedemann, Maja</creator><creator>Gibson, Shannon P.</creator><creator>Jarke, Hannes</creator><creator>Karakasheva, Ralitsa</creator><creator>Khorrami, Peggah R.</creator><creator>Kveder, Jakob</creator><creator>Andersen, Thomas Lind</creator><creator>Lofthus, Ingvild S.</creator><creator>McGill, Lucy</creator><creator>Nieto, Ana E.</creator><creator>Pérez, Jacobo</creator><creator>Quail, Sahana K.</creator><creator>Rutherford, Charlotte</creator><creator>Tavera, Felice L.</creator><creator>Tomat, Nastja</creator><creator>Reyn, Chiara Van</creator><creator>Većkalov, Bojana</creator><creator>Wang, Keying</creator><creator>Yosifova, Aleksandra</creator><creator>Papa, Francesca</creator><creator>Rubaltelli, Enrico</creator><creator>Linden, Sander van der</creator><creator>Folke, Tomas</creator><general>Nature Publishing Group UK</general><general>Nature Publishing Group</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4965-1173</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7521-755X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8477-1261</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5931-7243</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6022-6381</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1309-6075</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9773-8287</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9828-8174</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6960-3980</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1179-5921</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1100-2525</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9798-2666</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1506-2135</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4487-3757</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5237-7489</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0269-1744</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4220-1674</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8470-101X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0702-2806</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5767-1540</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9284-4918</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6768-8426</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20200601</creationdate><title>Replicating patterns of prospect theory for decision under risk</title><author>Ruggeri, Kai ; Alí, Sonia ; Berge, Mari Louise ; Bertoldo, Giulia ; Bjørndal, Ludvig D. ; Cortijos-Bernabeu, Anna ; Davison, Clair ; Demić, Emir ; Esteban-Serna, Celia ; Friedemann, Maja ; Gibson, Shannon P. ; Jarke, Hannes ; Karakasheva, Ralitsa ; Khorrami, Peggah R. ; Kveder, Jakob ; Andersen, Thomas Lind ; Lofthus, Ingvild S. ; McGill, Lucy ; Nieto, Ana E. ; Pérez, Jacobo ; Quail, Sahana K. ; Rutherford, Charlotte ; Tavera, Felice L. ; Tomat, Nastja ; Reyn, Chiara Van ; Većkalov, Bojana ; Wang, Keying ; Yosifova, Aleksandra ; Papa, Francesca ; Rubaltelli, Enrico ; Linden, Sander van der ; Folke, Tomas</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c481t-d87522639bc0f23cd12ca96232f9e7262944879fc61e01d1de08ee1746127b783</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>4014/159</topic><topic>4014/477</topic><topic>4014/477/2811</topic><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Behavioral Sciences</topic><topic>Biomedical and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Cross-Cultural Comparison</topic><topic>Decision Making</topic><topic>Exceptions</topic><topic>Expected utility</topic><topic>Experimental Psychology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Individual differences</topic><topic>Kahneman, Daniel (1934-2024)</topic><topic>Life Sciences</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Microeconomics</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Neurosciences</topic><topic>Personality and Social Psychology</topic><topic>Prospect theory</topic><topic>Psychological Theory</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Risk</topic><topic>Risk-Taking</topic><topic>Scrutiny</topic><topic>Theory</topic><topic>Thresholds</topic><topic>Utility theory</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ruggeri, Kai</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alí, Sonia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Berge, Mari Louise</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bertoldo, Giulia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bjørndal, Ludvig D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cortijos-Bernabeu, Anna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davison, Clair</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Demić, Emir</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Esteban-Serna, Celia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Friedemann, Maja</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gibson, Shannon P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jarke, Hannes</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Karakasheva, Ralitsa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khorrami, Peggah R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kveder, Jakob</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Andersen, Thomas Lind</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lofthus, Ingvild S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McGill, Lucy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nieto, Ana E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pérez, Jacobo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Quail, Sahana K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rutherford, Charlotte</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tavera, Felice L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tomat, Nastja</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reyn, Chiara Van</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Većkalov, Bojana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Keying</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yosifova, Aleksandra</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Papa, Francesca</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rubaltelli, Enrico</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Linden, Sander van der</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Folke, Tomas</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Psychology</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Nature human behaviour</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ruggeri, Kai</au><au>Alí, Sonia</au><au>Berge, Mari Louise</au><au>Bertoldo, Giulia</au><au>Bjørndal, Ludvig D.</au><au>Cortijos-Bernabeu, Anna</au><au>Davison, Clair</au><au>Demić, Emir</au><au>Esteban-Serna, Celia</au><au>Friedemann, Maja</au><au>Gibson, Shannon P.</au><au>Jarke, Hannes</au><au>Karakasheva, Ralitsa</au><au>Khorrami, Peggah R.</au><au>Kveder, Jakob</au><au>Andersen, Thomas Lind</au><au>Lofthus, Ingvild S.</au><au>McGill, Lucy</au><au>Nieto, Ana E.</au><au>Pérez, Jacobo</au><au>Quail, Sahana K.</au><au>Rutherford, Charlotte</au><au>Tavera, Felice L.</au><au>Tomat, Nastja</au><au>Reyn, Chiara Van</au><au>Većkalov, Bojana</au><au>Wang, Keying</au><au>Yosifova, Aleksandra</au><au>Papa, Francesca</au><au>Rubaltelli, Enrico</au><au>Linden, Sander van der</au><au>Folke, Tomas</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Replicating patterns of prospect theory for decision under risk</atitle><jtitle>Nature human behaviour</jtitle><stitle>Nat Hum Behav</stitle><addtitle>Nat Hum Behav</addtitle><date>2020-06-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>4</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>622</spage><epage>633</epage><pages>622-633</pages><issn>2397-3374</issn><eissn>2397-3374</eissn><abstract>Prospect theory is among the most influential frameworks in behavioural science, specifically in research on decision-making under risk. Kahneman and Tversky’s 1979 study tested financial choices under risk, concluding that such judgements deviate significantly from the assumptions of expected utility theory, which had remarkable impacts on science, policy and industry. Though substantial evidence supports prospect theory, many presumed canonical theories have drawn scrutiny for recent replication failures. In response, we directly test the original methods in a multinational study ( n  = 4,098 participants, 19 countries, 13 languages), adjusting only for current and local currencies while requiring all participants to respond to all items. The results replicated for 94% of items, with some attenuation. Twelve of 13 theoretical contrasts replicated, with 100% replication in some countries. Heterogeneity between countries and intra-individual variation highlight meaningful avenues for future theorizing and applications. We conclude that the empirical foundations for prospect theory replicate beyond any reasonable thresholds. In a sample of over 4,000 participants from 19 countries, the core patterns from a highly influential study on behaviour and decision-making broadly replicate, with only minor exceptions and somewhat smaller effect sizes.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Nature Publishing Group UK</pub><pmid>32424259</pmid><doi>10.1038/s41562-020-0886-x</doi><tpages>12</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4965-1173</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7521-755X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8477-1261</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5931-7243</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6022-6381</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1309-6075</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9773-8287</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9828-8174</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6960-3980</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1179-5921</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1100-2525</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9798-2666</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1506-2135</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4487-3757</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5237-7489</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0269-1744</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4220-1674</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8470-101X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0702-2806</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5767-1540</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9284-4918</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6768-8426</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2397-3374
ispartof Nature human behaviour, 2020-06, Vol.4 (6), p.622-633
issn 2397-3374
2397-3374
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2404640962
source MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals; Nature
subjects 4014/159
4014/477
4014/477/2811
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Behavioral Sciences
Biomedical and Life Sciences
Cross-Cultural Comparison
Decision Making
Exceptions
Expected utility
Experimental Psychology
Female
Humans
Individual differences
Kahneman, Daniel (1934-2024)
Life Sciences
Male
Microeconomics
Middle Aged
Neurosciences
Personality and Social Psychology
Prospect theory
Psychological Theory
Reproducibility of Results
Risk
Risk-Taking
Scrutiny
Theory
Thresholds
Utility theory
Young Adult
title Replicating patterns of prospect theory for decision under risk
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-25T02%3A02%3A28IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Replicating%20patterns%20of%20prospect%20theory%20for%20decision%20under%20risk&rft.jtitle=Nature%20human%20behaviour&rft.au=Ruggeri,%20Kai&rft.date=2020-06-01&rft.volume=4&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=622&rft.epage=633&rft.pages=622-633&rft.issn=2397-3374&rft.eissn=2397-3374&rft_id=info:doi/10.1038/s41562-020-0886-x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2404640962%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2414911713&rft_id=info:pmid/32424259&rfr_iscdi=true