Journal article icon

Journal article

Risky choice: Probability weighting explains independence axiom violations in monkeys

Abstract:
UNLABELLED: Expected Utility Theory (EUT) provides axioms for maximizing utility in risky choice. The Independence Axiom (IA) is its most demanding axiom: preferences between two options should not change when altering both options equally by mixing them with a common gamble. We tested common consequence (CC) and common ratio (CR) violations of the IA over several months in thousands of stochastic choices using a large variety of binary option sets. Three monkeys showed consistently few outright Preference Reversals (8%) but substantial graded Preference Changes (46%) between the initial preferred gamble and the corresponding altered gamble. Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) indicated that gamble probabilities predicted most Preference Changes in CC (72%) and CR (88%) tests. The Akaike Information Criterion indicated that probability weighting within Cumulative Prospect Theory (CPT) explained choices better than models using Expected Value (EV) or EUT. Fitting by utility and probability weighting functions of CPT resulted in nonlinear and non-parallel indifference curves (IC) in the Marschak-Machina triangle and suggested IA non-compliance of models using EV or EUT. Indeed, CPT models predicted Preference Changes better than EV and EUT models. Indifference points in out-of-sample tests were closer to CPT-estimated ICs than EV and EUT ICs. Finally, while the few outright Preference Reversals may reflect the long experience of our monkeys, their more graded Preference Changes corresponded to those reported for humans. In benefitting from the wide testing possibilities in monkeys, our stringent axiomatic tests contribute critical information about risky decision-making and serves as basis for investigating neuronal decision mechanisms. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11166-022-09388-7
Publication status:
Published
Peer review status:
Peer reviewed

Actions

Access Document

Publisher copy:
10.1007/s11166-022-09388-7

Authors

More by this author
Role:
Author
ORCID:
0000-0001-9009-0764
More by this author
Role:
Author
ORCID:
0000-0001-8188-6891
More by this author
Role:
Author
ORCID:
0000-0002-8530-4518


More from this funder
Funder identifier:
10.13039/100004440
Grant:
WT 204811
More from this funder
Funder identifier:
10.13039/501100000781
Grant:
293549
More from this funder
Funder identifier:
10.13039/100000025
Grant:
P50MH094258


Publisher:
Springer
Journal:
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty More from this journal
Volume:
65
Issue:
3
Pages:
319-351
Publication date:
2022-07-22
DOI:
EISSN:
1573-0476
ISSN:
0895-5646


Language:
English
Keywords:
Pubs id:
1273336
Local pid:
pubs:1273336
Source identifiers:
W4286488118
Deposit date:
2026-04-27
ARK identifier:
This ORA record was generated from metadata provided by an external service. It has not been edited by the ORA Team.

Terms of use


Views and Downloads






If you are the owner of this record, you can report an update to it here: Report update to this record

TO TOP