IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ebl/ecbull/eb-26-00112.html

Intemperate fourth-order lottery choices under rank-dependent utility

Author

Listed:
  • David Alan Peel

    (University of Lancaster)

  • Jie Zhang

    (Xi'an Jiaotong Liverpool University)

Abstract

In the experimental literature, Cumulative Prospect Theory (CPT), evaluated from the status quo reference point, and Rank Dependent Utility (RDU) are often assumed to imply the same fourth-order lottery choices. In this note, we show that this equivalence need not hold. The RDU model, calibrated with the standard probability weighting and power value functions, and representative parameter values from Tversky and Kahneman (1992) and Bernheim and Sprenger (2020), chooses the intemperate lottery, whereas the CPT DM, evaluated from the status quo reference point with the same parameter values chooses the temperate lottery. The divergence arises because RDU and CPT assign cumulative probability weights differently in this lottery setting. The result suggests that RDU may help explain the relatively high proportion of intemperate choices reported in experimental studies.

Suggested Citation

  • David Alan Peel & Jie Zhang, 2026. "Intemperate fourth-order lottery choices under rank-dependent utility," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 46(2), pages 613-620.
  • Handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-26-00112
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.accessecon.com/Pubs/EB/2026/Volume46/EB-26-V46-I2-P52.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D8 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty
    • C9 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments

    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:ebl:ecbull:eb-26-00112. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: John P. Conley (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.