| Literature DB >> 32424259 |
Kai Ruggeri1,2, Sonia Alí3, Mari Louise Berge4, Giulia Bertoldo5, Ludvig D Bjørndal6, Anna Cortijos-Bernabeu7, Clair Davison8, Emir Demić9, Celia Esteban-Serna10, Maja Friedemann11, Shannon P Gibson12, Hannes Jarke13, Ralitsa Karakasheva14, Peggah R Khorrami15, Jakob Kveder16, Thomas Lind Andersen17, Ingvild S Lofthus6, Lucy McGill18, Ana E Nieto19, Jacobo Pérez19, Sahana K Quail20, Charlotte Rutherford21, Felice L Tavera22, Nastja Tomat16, Chiara Van Reyn23, Bojana Većkalov9,24, Keying Wang10, Aleksandra Yosifova25, Francesca Papa26, Enrico Rubaltelli27, Sander van der Linden28, Tomas Folke29,30.
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.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32424259 DOI: 10.1038/s41562-020-0886-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nat Hum Behav ISSN: 2397-3374