Bayesian Prior Sensitivity in Psychological Decision Modeling: Evidence from Loss Aversion Estimation Under Prospect Theory
Abstract
Prior specification is a critical yet frequently neglected decision in Bayesian inference, with potentially severe consequences for behavioral research conclusions, particularly in nonlinear psychological decision models where likelihood surfaces are often flat and parameters are weakly identified. This study presents a simulation-based framework for assessing prior sensitivity in Bayesian psychological decision modeling, using loss aversion estimation under Prospect Theory as a case study. Synthetic binary choice data were generated from the Tversky-Kahneman utility function across four true loss aversion values (λ ∈ {1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0}) and three sample sizes (n ∈ {100, 200, 500}), fitted under three prior specifications: weakly informative diffuse prior, moderate informative, and strongly informative, yielding 1,080 total model fittings from 360 synthetic datasets via Laplace approximation with importance-weighted resampling. Performance was evaluated via posterior mean bias, RMSE, credible interval width, and directional probability P(λ > 2). Three findings emerged. First, diffuse default priors failed to recover the loss aversion parameter when the likelihood was insufficiently informative, regardless of sample size. Second, strongly informative priors introduced systematic bias that persisted independently of sample size when the true parameter deviated from the prior mean. Third, prior choice produced meaningful disagreements in directional behavioral conclusions that larger samples could not eliminate. These findings demonstrate that prior sensitivity is a substantive methodological concern in Bayesian psychological decision modeling that cannot be resolved by increasing sample size alone, and researchers are encouraged to treat prior specification as an explicit analytical choice supported by routine sensitivity analysis.
References
Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J., Robinson, E. S. J., & Munafò, M. R. (2013). Power failure: Why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14(5), 365–376. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3475
Chakraborty, A., Nott, D. J., Drovandi, C. C., Frazier, D. T., & Sisson, S. A. (2022). Weakly informative priors and prior-data conflict checking for likelihood-free inference. arXiv:2202.09993. https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.09993
Depaoli, S., & van de Schoot, R. (2017). Improving transparency and replication in Bayesian statistics: The WAMBS-Checklist. Psychological Methods, 22(2), 240–261. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000065
Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., Dunson, D. B., Vehtari, A., & Rubin, D. B. (2013). Bayesian data analysis (3rd ed.). CRC Press.
Gronau, Q. F., Ly, A., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2021). Informed Bayesian t-tests. The American Statistician, 74(2), 137–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2018.1562983
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
Nilsson, H., Rieskamp, J., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2011). Hierarchical Bayesian parameter estimation for cumulative prospect theory. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 55(1), 84–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2010.08.006
Nott, D. J., Wang, X., Evans, M., & Englert, B.-G. (2020). Checking for prior-data conflict using prior-to-posterior divergences. Statistical Science, 35(2), 234–253. https://doi.org/10.1214/19-STS731
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), Article aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716
Scheibehenne, B., & Pachur, T. (2015). Using Bayesian hierarchical parameter estimation to assess the generalizability of cognitive models of choice. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(2), 391–407. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0684-4
Smid, S. C., McNeish, D., Miocevic, M., & van de Schoot, R. (2020). Bayesian versus frequentist estimation for structural equation models in small sample contexts: A systematic review. Structural Equation Modeling, 27(1), 131–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2019.1577140
Stefan, A. M., Katsimpokis, D., Gronau, Q. F., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2022). Expert agreement in prior elicitation and its effects on Bayesian inference. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 29(5), 1776–1794. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-022-02074-4
Tierney, L., & Kadane, J. B. (1986). Accurate approximations for posterior moments and marginal densities. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81(393), 82–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1986.10478240
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 297–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00122574
van de Schoot, R., Depaoli, S., King, R., Kramer, B., Märtens, K., Tadesse, M. G., Vannucci, M., Gelman, A., Veen, D., Willemsen, J., & Yau, C. (2021). Bayesian statistics and modelling. Nature Reviews Methods Primers, 1(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-020-00001-2
van Erp, S., Oberski, D. L., & Mulder, J. (2018). Shrinkage priors for Bayesian penalized regression. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 89, 31–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2018.12.004
Veenman, M., Stefan, A. M., & Haaf, J. M. (2023). Bayesian hierarchical modeling: An introduction and reassessment. Behavior Research Methods, 56(5), 4602–4620. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-023-02204-3
Walasek, L., & Stewart, N. (2015). How to make loss aversion disappear and reappear: A theoretical and empirical investigation of manipulations of loss aversion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(1), 7–11. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000039
Wilson, R. C., & Collins, A. G. (2019). Ten simple rules for the computational modeling of behavioral data. eLife, 8, Article e49547. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49547
Copyright (c) 2026 Aflah Zakinov Irta, Rizal Kurniawan, Anindra Guspa

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Sciencestatistics: Journal of Statistics, Probability, and Its Application provides open access to its content, promoting global knowledge exchange. All articles are freely available for reading and downloading. Under the CC-BY license, authors retain copyright but grant others permission to use the content, provided proper attribution is given. Users must cite the original source, including the author(s), Sciencestatistics: Journal of Statistics, Probability, and Its Application as the publisher, publication year, volume, and DOI (if available).
