A Genuine Foundation for Prospect Theory
AbstractIn most models of (cumulative) prospect theory, reference dependence of preferences is imposed beforehand and the location of the reference point is determined exogenously. This paper presents principles that provide critical tests and foundations for prospect theory preferences without assuming reference-dependent preferences a priori. Instead, reference dependence is derived from behavior and the reference point arises endogenously. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012
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 InfoPaper provided by Economics, The University of Manchester in its series The School of Economics Discussion Paper Series with number 1114.
Date of creation: 2011
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Manchester M13 9PL
Phone: (0)161 275 4868
Fax: (0)161 275 4812
Web page: http://www.socialsciences.manchester.ac.uk/disciplines/economics/
More information through EDIRC
Other versions of this item:
- D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Mark J. Machina & David Schmeidler, 1990.
"A More Robust Definition of Subjective Probability,"
Discussion Paper Serie A
306, University of Bonn, Germany.
- Machina, Mark J & Schmeidler, David, 1992. "A More Robust Definition of Subjective Probability," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(4), pages 745-80, July.
- Machina,Mark & Schmeidler,David, 1991. "A more robust definition of subjective probability," Discussion Paper Serie A 365, University of Bonn, Germany.
- Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2005.
"What is Loss Aversion?,"
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty,
Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 157-167, January.
- Battalio, Raymond C & Kagel, John H & Jiranyakul, Komain, 1990. " Testing between Alternative Models of Choice under Uncertainty: Some Initial Results," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 25-50, March.
- Schmidt, Ulrich & Starmer, Chris & Sugden, Robert, 2008.
"Third-generation prospect theory,"
Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy
28932, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW).
- John Dickhaut & Kevin McCabe & Jennifer C. Nagode & Aldo Rustichini & Kip Smith & Jose Pardo, 2002. "The impact of the certainty context on the process of choice," CEEL Working Papers 0216, Cognitive and Experimental Economics Laboratory, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.
- Peter Brooks & Horst Zank, 2005. "Loss Averse Behavior," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 301-325, December.
- Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2008.
"Risk Aversion in Cumulative Prospect Theory,"
INFORMS, vol. 54(1), pages 208-216, January.
- Schmidt, Ulrich & Horst Zank, 2002. "Risk Aversion in Cumulative Prospect Theory," Royal Economic Society Annual Conference 2002 162, Royal Economic Society.
- U Schmidt & H Zank, 2002. "Risk Aversion in Cumulative Prospect Theory," The School of Economics Discussion Paper Series 0207, Economics, The University of Manchester.
- Thaler, Richard, 1980. "Toward a positive theory of consumer choice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 39-60, March.
- Schmidt, Ulrich & Zank, Horst, 2009.
"A simple model of cumulative prospect theory,"
Journal of Mathematical Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 45(3-4), pages 308-319, March.
- Bateman, Ian J, et al, 1997. "A Test of the Theory of Reference-Dependent Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 112(2), pages 479-505, May.
- Nathalie Etchart-Vincent, 2004. "Is Probability Weighting Sensitive to the Magnitude of Consequences? An Experimental Investigation on Losses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 217-235, 05.
- Gul, Faruk, 1991. "A Theory of Disappointment Aversion," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(3), pages 667-86, May.
- Schmidt, Ulrich & Traub, Stefan, 2002. " An Experimental Test of Loss Aversion," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 233-49, November.
- John C. Hershey & Paul J. H. Schoemaker, 1985. "Probability Versus Certainty Equivalence Methods in Utility Measurement: Are they Equivalent?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(10), pages 1213-1231, October.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Marianne Sensier).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.