Content area
Full Text
One of the most significant current discussions in economics and psychology is about the (lack of) link between normative (what we should do, based on probability and logic) and descriptive theories (what we do) of decision making. An obvious challenge for and advantage of good theory in decision making is that it is general, being able to account for both normative (rational) and descriptive psychological mechanisms and assumptions (Kusev et al. 2009). According to the foundation of economic theory, people have stable and coherent “global” preferences that guide their choices among alternatives varying in risk and reward. In all their variations and formulations, normative utility theory (von Neumann & Morgenstern 1947), and descriptive prospect theory (Kahneman & Tversky 1979; Tversky & Kahneman 1992) share this assumption (Kusev et al. 2009). However, a consistent claim from behavioral decision researchers is that, contrary to the assumptions of classical economics, preferences are not stable and inherent in individuals but are “locally” constructed “on the fly” and are strongly influenced by context and the available choice options (e.g., Kusev et al. 2009; 2012a; 2012b; Slovic 1995). For example, the preference reversal phenomenon (Lichtenstein & Slovic 1971; 1973) suggests that no stable pattern of preference underlies even basic choices; in other words, consistent trade-offs between lotteries with different probabilities and values are not made. Accordingly, we shall present some evidence for violations...