The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

The effect of regulatory focus on the shape of probability-weighting function: evidence from a cross- modality matching method

The effect of regulatory focus on the shape of probability-weighting function: evidence from a cross- modality matching method
The effect of regulatory focus on the shape of probability-weighting function: evidence from a cross- modality matching method
Prospect theory (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979 and Kahneman and Tversky, 1984) suggests that when people are presented with objective probabilities they (a) underweight high probabilities (e.g., behave as if 99% likelihood of an event is lower than 99%), (b) overweight low probabilities, and (c) are relatively insensitive to differences among moderate probabilities. We hypothesized that these biases will be found under prevention focus ( Higgins, 1997), which can be triggered by security needs, and monetary considerations; but reversed under promotion focus ( Higgins, 1997), which can be triggered by self-actualization needs. To test the hypothesis, we developed a cross-modality matching task that allows tapping probability transformations independently from the value of an event. In two studies, participants (N=116 and N=156) drew portions of circles that represented their transformations of 13 different stated probabilities regarding three scenarios (either promotion or prevention). Results in the prevention condition were consistent with prospect theory—providing validity for the cross-modality matching method. Results in the promotion condition indicated both a general elevation (overweighting), which was most evident for moderate and moderate-high probabilities, and minor underweighting for probabilities larger than .80. In the second study, we also assessed chronic-regulatory focus which yielded effects similar to the manipulated-regulatory focus. In both studies, some individuals in the promotion focus groups yielded probability weighting functions with a curvature opposite the predictions of prospect theory; and within each experimental condition there were additional significant differences in the transformation yielded by the putatively similar three scenarios. The results indicate that our cross-modality matching method is very sensitive to context effects and hint at the possibility of applying similar cross-modality matching methods to explore other decision-making processes such as value functions (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979)
0749-5978
20-39
Kluger, Avraham N.
086ae0b5-610d-4c4e-845a-6a66f336e4c7
Stephan, Elena
4d379020-be54-4a1c-848a-9b61923648d2
Ganzach, Yoav
c8a27351-6dc6-4d34-8eae-b6ab2cc46164
Hershkovitz, Meirav
5b8b06d2-3d7c-4bc7-b70c-5b84cbb72bd6
Kluger, Avraham N.
086ae0b5-610d-4c4e-845a-6a66f336e4c7
Stephan, Elena
4d379020-be54-4a1c-848a-9b61923648d2
Ganzach, Yoav
c8a27351-6dc6-4d34-8eae-b6ab2cc46164
Hershkovitz, Meirav
5b8b06d2-3d7c-4bc7-b70c-5b84cbb72bd6

Kluger, Avraham N., Stephan, Elena, Ganzach, Yoav and Hershkovitz, Meirav (2004) The effect of regulatory focus on the shape of probability-weighting function: evidence from a cross- modality matching method. Journal of Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 95 (1), 20-39. (doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2004.05.003).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Prospect theory (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979 and Kahneman and Tversky, 1984) suggests that when people are presented with objective probabilities they (a) underweight high probabilities (e.g., behave as if 99% likelihood of an event is lower than 99%), (b) overweight low probabilities, and (c) are relatively insensitive to differences among moderate probabilities. We hypothesized that these biases will be found under prevention focus ( Higgins, 1997), which can be triggered by security needs, and monetary considerations; but reversed under promotion focus ( Higgins, 1997), which can be triggered by self-actualization needs. To test the hypothesis, we developed a cross-modality matching task that allows tapping probability transformations independently from the value of an event. In two studies, participants (N=116 and N=156) drew portions of circles that represented their transformations of 13 different stated probabilities regarding three scenarios (either promotion or prevention). Results in the prevention condition were consistent with prospect theory—providing validity for the cross-modality matching method. Results in the promotion condition indicated both a general elevation (overweighting), which was most evident for moderate and moderate-high probabilities, and minor underweighting for probabilities larger than .80. In the second study, we also assessed chronic-regulatory focus which yielded effects similar to the manipulated-regulatory focus. In both studies, some individuals in the promotion focus groups yielded probability weighting functions with a curvature opposite the predictions of prospect theory; and within each experimental condition there were additional significant differences in the transformation yielded by the putatively similar three scenarios. The results indicate that our cross-modality matching method is very sensitive to context effects and hint at the possibility of applying similar cross-modality matching methods to explore other decision-making processes such as value functions (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979)

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Published date: 2004
Organisations: Psychology

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 45066
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/45066
ISSN: 0749-5978
PURE UUID: a3f69a0c-5d3f-4429-bdf3-7b458b7fc965

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 26 Mar 2007
Last modified: 15 Mar 2024 09:09

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Avraham N. Kluger
Author: Elena Stephan
Author: Yoav Ganzach
Author: Meirav Hershkovitz

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×