Prospect Versus Utility
We show how to calibrate a prospect model of decision making under risk for an individual. The prospect model is empirically compared to a utility model on two criteria, verification of the postulates of each model, and predictive accuracy. The empirical comparison is performed via three experiments. In Experiment 1, predictive accuracy of the models is compared in nonparadoxical situations, those which favor neither model. In contrast the predictions in Experiment 2 are for paradoxical choices, those which favor the prospect model. In Experiment 1, the prospect model is compared to a model comprising a utility function which permits separate risk attitudes for gain and losses, and hence is more flexible than a utility model as traditionally assessed. In contrast the utility model in Experiment 3 is assessed as is traditionally done assuming constant risk attitude across gains and losses. Several calibration procedures are contrasted across experiments. Our results show a high degree of consistency with the postulates of both models. On predictive accuracy the prospect model outperforms the utility model for paradoxical choices. However, for nonparadoxical situations there is little difference in the predictive ability of both models.
Volume (Year): 35 (1989)
Issue (Month): 1 (January)
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://www.informs.org/Email:
More information through EDIRC
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:35:y:1989:i:1:p:22-41. 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: (Mirko Janc)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.