Violence and Risk Preference: Experimental Evidence from Afghanistan: Comment
评论Callen等人(2014)的研究，指出其发现的“确定性偏好”可能受系统噪声干扰，通过新设计的选项列表实验，证明随机选择而非确定性偏好更能解释结果，且风险厌恶水平可由前景理论中的参照依赖解释。
In this comment on Callen et al. (2014), I revisit recent evidence uncovering a “preference for certainty” in violation of dominant normative and descriptive theories of decision-making under risk. I show that the empirical findings are potentially confounded by systematic noise. I then develop choice lists that allow me to disentangle these different explanations. Experimental results obtained with these lists reject explanations based on a preference for certainty in favor of explanations based on random choice. From a theoretical point of view, the levels of risk aversion detected in the choice list involving certainty can be accounted for by prospect theory through reference dependence activated by salient outcomes.