IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tin/wpaper/20050111.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Origin of Prospect Theory, or Testing the Intuitive Statistician

Author

Listed:
  • Floris Heukelom

    (Faculty of Economics, Universiteit van Amsterdam)

Abstract

The origin of prospect theory is the desire to test the intuitive statistician in the real world. The development of this theory by the cognitive psychologists Kahneman and Tversky can be traced to the formers work in cognitive psychophysics, in which deviations from average behavior are termed (statistical) errors; and the latters work on decision theory, with its normative vs. descriptive framework. The combination of these two types of probabilistic psychology culminated in a new descriptive theory of human decision making in the real world, coined Heuristics and Biases. The 1979 Econometrica article applies this new descriptive theory to economists EUT. It equates the intuitive statistician with the rational economic man and shows how it descriptively fails.

Suggested Citation

  • Floris Heukelom, 2005. "The Origin of Prospect Theory, or Testing the Intuitive Statistician," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 05-111/2, Tinbergen Institute.
    • Handle: RePEc:tin:wpaper:20050111
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://papers.tinbergen.nl/05111.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Laibson, David & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1998. "Amos Tversky and the Ascent of Behavioral Economics," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 7-47, April.
    2. Mas-Colell, Andreu & Whinston, Michael D. & Green, Jerry R., 1995. "Microeconomic Theory," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195102680.
    3. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1986. "Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 251-278, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Basel, Jörn S. & Brühl, Rolf, 2013. "Rationality and dual process models of reasoning in managerial cognition and decision making," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 745-754.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tarnanidis, Theodore & Owusu-Frimpong, Nana & Nwankwo, Sonny & Omar, Maktoba, 2015. "Why we buy? Modeling consumer selection of referents," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 24-36.
    2. Jonathan W. Leland & Mark Schneider, 2016. "Salience, Framing, and Decisions under Risk, Uncertainty, and Time," Working Papers 16-08, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    3. Elie Appelbaum, 2000. "Estimating the firm's demand and supply functions under uncertainty without expected utility," Working Papers 2000_5, York University, Department of Economics.
    4. Dhami, Sanjit & Al-Nowaihi, Ali, 2010. "Optimal taxation in the presence of tax evasion: Expected utility versus prospect theory," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 313-337, August.
    5. Newark, Daniel A., 2014. "Indecision and the construction of self," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 125(2), pages 162-174.
    6. Sara Suarez-Fernandez & Maria Jose Perez-Villadoniga & Juan Prieto-Rodriguez, 2018. "Are We (Un)Consciously Driven by First Impressions? Price Declarations vs. Observed Cinema Demand when VAT Increases," ACEI Working Paper Series AWP-02-2018, Association for Cultural Economics International, revised Jul 2018.
    7. Colin Linsley & Christine Linsley, 2008. "Impact of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act upon management: a behavioural discussion," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 23(4), pages 313-327, April.
    8. Floris Heukelom, 2007. "Kahneman and Tversky and the Origin of Behavioral Economics," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 07-003/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    9. Güth, W., 1997. "Boundedly Rational Decision Emergence -A General Perspective and Some Selective Illustrations-," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 1997,29, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
    10. Freeman, Steven F., 1997. "Good decisions : reconciling human rationality, evolution, and ethics," Working papers WP 3962-97., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    11. Alexandra Rausch & Alexander Brauneis, 2015. "It’s about how the task is set: the inclusion–exclusion effect and accountability in preprocessing management information," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 23(2), pages 313-344, June.
    12. Chorvat, Terrence, 2006. "Taxing utility," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 1-16, February.
    13. Carter, Steven & McBride, Michael, 2013. "Experienced utility versus decision utility: Putting the ‘S’ in satisfaction," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 13-23.
    14. Ellen Garbarino & Robert Slonim, 2007. "Preferences and decision errors in the winner’s curse," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 241-257, June.
    15. Elie Matta & Jean McGuire, 2008. "Too Risky to Hold? The Effect of Downside Risk, Accumulated Equity Wealth, and Firm Performance on CEO Equity Reduction," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 567-580, August.
    16. Che-Yuan Liang, 2017. "Optimal inequality behind the veil of ignorance," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 83(3), pages 431-455, October.
    17. Giuseppe Pernagallo & Benedetto Torrisi, 2020. "A theory of information overload applied to perfectly efficient financial markets," Review of Behavioral Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 14(2), pages 223-236, October.
    18. Prieto, Marc & Caemmerer, Barbara & Baltas, George, 2015. "Using a hedonic price model to test prospect theory assertions: The asymmetrical and nonlinear effect of reliability on used car prices," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 206-212.
    19. Moshe Levy & Haim Levy, 2013. "Prospect Theory: Much Ado About Nothing?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 7, pages 129-144, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    20. Schilirò, Daniele & Graziano, Mario, 2011. "Scelte e razionalità nei modelli economici: un'analisi multidisciplinare [Choices and rationality in economic models: a multidisciplinary analysis]," MPRA Paper 31910, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Kahneman and Tversky; Prospect Theory; Intuitive Statistician; Heuristics and Biases;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • B31 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - History of Economic Thought: Individuals - - - Individuals
    • B41 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Economic Methodology - - - Economic Methodology
    • D01 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:tin:wpaper:20050111. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Tinbergen Office +31 (0)10-4088900 (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/tinbenl.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.