IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Teorie očekávaného užitku versus kumulativní prospektová teorie: empirický pohled (available in Czech only)



This paper pits expected utility theory and cumulative prospect theory against each other as regards their descriptive accuracy. Some older as well as newer pieces of evidence are described which show that under certain circumstances, expected utility theory is not descriptively valid. The most promising alternative, cumulative prospect theory, is then presented in some detail, including a brief discussion of how it avoids violations of stochastic dominance and how it explains the above evidence. It is pointed out that there are other empirical observations which cannot be explained by cumulative prospect theory either. It is concluded that expected utility theory is likeyl to remain the core instrument for modeling human decision-making under risk at least in the near future.

Suggested Citation

  • Michal Skořepa, 2007. "Teorie očekávaného užitku versus kumulativní prospektová teorie: empirický pohled (available in Czech only)," Czech Economic Review, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, vol. 1(2), pages 180-195, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:fau:aucocz:au2007_180

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    More about this item


    expected utility theory; cumulative prospect theory; decision making under risk; economic experiments; weighting function; value function; rank-dependent decision making; reference-dependent decision making;

    JEL classification:

    • B59 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Current Heterodox Approaches - - - Other
    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty


    Access and download statistics


    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:fau:aucocz:au2007_180. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Lenka Stastna). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.