Reasons for Rank-Dependent Utility Evaluation
AbstractThree reasons for why people may evaluate utility in a rank-dependent fashion have been suggested: (a) rank-dependent weighting is a function of perceptual biases and thus not prescriptively defensible; (b) weights are (re)distributed by motivational processes that reflect stable personality characteristics of the decision maker; and (c) weights are (re)distributed as a function of the situation, allowing rank-dependent evaluation to be a rational response to an environment with asymmetric loss functions. By modifying a study by Wakker, Erev, and Weber (1994) we show that all three processes--that is, perceptual biases, individual predispositions in weighting, as well as rational adaptation to an asymmetric loss function--can be involved in rank-dependent weighting. Copyright 1997 by Kluwer Academic Publishers
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Springer in its journal Journal of Risk and Uncertainty.
Volume (Year): 14 (1997)
Issue (Month): 1 (January)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=100299
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Andrade, Eduardo B., 2011. "Excessive confidence in visually-based estimates," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 116(2), pages 252-261.
- Peter Brooks & Horst Zank, 2005. "Loss Averse Behavior," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 301-325, December.
- Bruno Deffains & Eric Langlais, 2009.
"Legal Interpretative Process and Litigants’Cognitive Biases,"
EconomiX Working Papers
2009-8, University of Paris West - Nanterre la Défense, EconomiX.
- Deffains, Bruno & Langlais, Eric, 2008. "Legal Interpretative Process and Litigants’ Cognitive Biases," MPRA Paper 14370, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- repec:ebl:ecbull:v:4:y:2008:i:19:p:1-6 is not listed on IDEAS
- Carlos Capistrán & Allan Timmermann, 2008.
"Disagreement and Biases in Inflation Expectations,"
CREATES Research Papers
2008-56, School of Economics and Management, University of Aarhus.
- Carlos CapistrÃ¡n & Allan Timmermann, 2006. "Disagreement and Biases in Inflation Expectations," Computing in Economics and Finance 2006 3, Society for Computational Economics.
- Carlos Capistrán & Allan Timmermann, 2006. "Disagreement and Biases in Inflation Expectations," Working Papers 2006-07, Banco de México.
- Birnbaum, Michael H. & Chavez, Alfredo, 1997. "Tests of Theories of Decision Making: Violations of Branch Independence and Distribution Independence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 161-194, August.
- Birnbaum, Michael H. & Patton, Jamie N. & Lott, Melissa K., 1999. "Evidence against Rank-Dependent Utility Theories: Tests of Cumulative Independence, Interval Independence, Stochastic Dominance, and Transitivity, , , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 44-83, January.
- Henry Stott, 2006. "Cumulative prospect theory's functional menagerie," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 101-130, March.
- Singer, Marcos & Donoso, Patricio & Rodríguez-Sickert, Carlos, 2008. "A static model of cooperation for group-based incentive plans," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 492-501, October.
- P Brooks & H Zank, 2004. "Attitudes on Gain and Loss Lotteries: A Simple Experiment," The School of Economics Discussion Paper Series 0402, Economics, The University of Manchester.
- Laetitia Placido & Olivier L'Haridon, 2008. "An allais paradox for generalized expected utility theories?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(19), pages 1-6.
- K. Carrie Armel & Aurelie Beaumel & Antonio Rangel, 2008. "Biasing simple choices by manipulating relative visual attention," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3, pages 396-403, June.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Guenther Eichhorn) or (Christopher F. Baum).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.