Multi-Outcome Risky Decision Task

Lopes, L. L., & Oden, G. C. (1999). The role of aspiration level in risky choice: A comparison of cumulative prospect theory and SP/A theory. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 43(2), 286-313.doi:10.1006/jmps.1999.1259


Table of Contents

Description

History of Use

References

Description:

Purpose
The Multi-Outcome Risky Decision Task was designed to assess risk preferences through choices between lotteries.
Questions
90 paired lotteries with 100 tickets each. Participants are asked to select the lottery from which they would prefer to draw a ticket.
  • Each lottery has 5 possible outcomes.
  • Lotteries are randomly paired within a set.
  • There are 2 sets of lotteries:
    • Positive outcome (gains)
    • Negative outcome (losses)
  • Within each set, there are 3 types of lotteries:
    • Standard lotteries have expected values of approximately $100 (or -$100).
    • Shifted lotteries are standard lotteries with outcomes increased (or decreased) by $50. Expected values are approximately $150 (or -$150).
    • Scaled lotteries are standard lotteries with outcomes multiplied by 1.145. Expected values are approximately $114.50 (or -$114.50).
Sub-scales
N/A
Domain

Psychometrics

Sample items
Participants are asked to choose between lotteries. Lotteries are depicted as combinations of dollar outcomes and graphical displays of the number of tickets corresponding to each outcome. (Instead of a graphical display of tickets, below we report probability of each outcome.)
  • Lottery with:
    • 4% chance of $200
    • 11% chance of $165
    • 19% chance of $130
    • 28% chance of $95
    • 38% chance of $60
  • Lottery with:
    • 4% chance of $200
    • 21% chance of $150
    • 50% chance of $100
    • 21% chance of $50
    • 4% chance of $0

References:

Scale:
  • Lopes, L. L., & Oden, G. C. (1999). The role of aspiration level in risky choice: A comparison of cumulative prospect theory and SP/A theory. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 43(2), 286-313.doi:10.1006/jmps.1999.1259

Selected Uses:
  • Lauriola, M., Levin, I. P., & Hart, S. S. (2007). Common and distinct factors in decision making under ambiguity and risk: A psychometric study of individual differences. Organizational Behavioral and Human Decision Processes, 104, 130-149. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.04.001
  • Brandstatter, E., Gigerenzer, G., & Hertwig, R. (2006). The Priority Heuristic: Making Choices Without Trade-Offs. Psychological Review, 113(2), 409-432. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.113.2.409
  • Bonniot-Cabanac, M., & Cabanac, M. (2009) Pleasure in decision-making situations: politics and gambling. Journal of Risk Research, 12(5),619-645. doi: 10.1080/13669870802579798

*