Asymmetric loss utility: an analysis of decision under risk
AbstractThis paper develops a utility model for evaluating lotteries. In estimating utility, risk averse people use an asymmetric loss function. Expected utility is seen as a special case that is a good approximation in some cases. The model resolves several paradoxes and makes easily falsifiable predictions. When used in hypothesis testing, the model allows researchers to directly specify their attitudes toward risk.
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 EconWPA in its series Game Theory and Information with number 0401006.
Length: 21 pages
Date of creation: 29 Jan 2004
Date of revision:
Note: Type of Document - pdf / TeX; prepared on Win; pages: 21; figures: 3
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://188.8.131.52
choice under uncertainty; non-expected utility theory; risk aversion; Allais paradox; Ellsberg paradox; St. Petersburg paradox; equity premium puzzle; decision theory;
Other versions of this item:
- Alex Strashny, 2004. "Asymmetric loss utility: an analysis of decision under risk," Game Theory and Information 0405012, EconWPA.
- 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.:
- Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1979.
"Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
7656, David K. Levine.
- Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-91, March.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (EconWPA).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.