Bias in Utility Assessments: Further Evidence and Explanations
通过概率等价和确定性等价方法，发现效用评估中的偏差方向与程度取决于参考概率和结果差异，锚定效应和启发式策略会加剧偏差，并讨论了PE模式重构、随机误差等解释。
Judgments about simple gambles, such as those used in utility assessment, can generate sizable and systematic bias. After Hershey and Schoemaker (Hershey, J. C., P. J. H. Schoemaker. 1985. Probability vs. certainty equivalence methods in utility measurement: Are they equivalent? Management Sci. 31 1213–1231.), we employ both the probability and certainty equivalence methods to explore bias. Our results show that: (1) the direction and degree of bias depend on characteristics of the assessment gamble such as the reference probability and the difference between outcomes, (2) presenting subjects with explicit anchors can change the size and direction of the bias, and (3) subjects using heuristic response strategies show significantly more bias than those using expectation strategies. We also discuss the status of possible explanations for the bias, in light of these new results, including PE mode reframing, random error, and anchoring and adjustment.