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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Nature human behaviour 2020-06, Vol.4 (6), p.622-633 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
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 |