This Article Full Text (PDF) e-companion References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Birnbaum, M. H. Articles by Bahra, J. P. Search for Related Content

Gain-Loss Separability and Coalescing in Risky Decision Making

Decision Research Center, Department of Psychology, California State University, Fullerton, 800 North State College Boulevard, Fullerton, California 92834-6846
Decision Research Center, Department of Psychology, California State University, Fullerton, 800 North State College Boulevard, Fullerton, California 92834-6846
mbirnbaum{at}fullerton.edu
jbgalactic{at}yahoo.com

This experiment tested two behavioral properties of risky decision making—gain-loss separability (GLS) and coalescing. Cumulative prospect theory (CPT) implies both properties, but the transfer of attention exchange (TAX) model violates both. Original prospect theory satisfies GLS but may or may not satisfy coalescing, depending on whether editing rules are assumed. A configural form of CPT proposed by Wu and Markle [Wu, G., A. B. Markle. 2004. An empirical test of gain-loss separability in prospect theory. Working Paper 06-25-04, Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago] violates GLS, but satisfies coalescing. New tests were designed and conducted to test these theories against specific predictions of a TAX model. This model used parameters estimated from previous data, together with simple new assumptions to extend TAX to gambles with negative and mixed consequences. Contrary to all three forms of prospect theory, systematic violations of both coalescing and GLS were observed. Violations of GLS were confirmed by analyses of individual data patterns by means of an error model in which each choice can have a different rate of error. Without estimating any parameters from the new data, the TAX model predicted the majority choices in the new data fairly well, correctly predicting when modal choices would violate GLS, when they would satisfy it, and when indifference would be observed.

Key Words: utility preference; decision choice; decision risk
History: Received: August 1, 2005;

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G. Wu and A. B. Markle An Empirical Test of Gain-Loss Separability in Prospect Theory Management Science, July 1, 2008; 54(7): 1322 - 1335. [Abstract] [PDF]

				U. Schmidt and H. Zank Risk Aversion in Cumulative Prospect Theory Management Science, January 1, 2008; 54(1): 208 - 216. [Abstract] [PDF]