IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v49y2003i7p979-981.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Data of Levy and Levy (2002) ÜProspect Theory: Much Ado About Nothing?Ý Actually Support Prospect Theory

Author

Listed:
  • Peter P. Wakker

    () (Department of Economics, University of Amsterdam, Roet\dot{e}rsstraat II, Amsterdam 1018 WB, The Netherlands)

Abstract

Levy and Levy (Management Science2002) present data that, according to their claims, violate prospect theory. They suggest that prospect theory's hypothesis of an S-shaped value function, concave for gains and convex for losses, is incorrect. However, all the data of Levy and Levy are perfectly consistent with the predictions of prospect theory, as can be verified by simply applying prospect theory formulas. The mistake of Levy and Levy is that they, incorrectly, thought that probability weighting could be ignored.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter P. Wakker, 2003. "The Data of Levy and Levy (2002) ÜProspect Theory: Much Ado About Nothing?Ý Actually Support Prospect Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(7), pages 979-981, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:49:y:2003:i:7:p:979-981
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.49.7.979.16383
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Harry Markowitz, 1952. "The Utility of Wealth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 60, pages 151-151.
    2. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    3. Chris Starmer, 2000. "Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 332-382, June.
    4. Moshe Levy & Haim Levy, 2002. "Prospect Theory: Much Ado About Nothing?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(10), pages 1334-1349, 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. Rosenblatt-Wisch, Rina, 2008. "Loss aversion in aggregate macroeconomic time series," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 52(7), pages 1140-1159, October.
    2. Peter Brooks & Simon Peters & Horst Zank, 2014. "Risk behavior for gain, loss, and mixed prospects," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(2), pages 153-182, August.
    3. Mehrmann, Annika & Sureth-Sloane, Caren, 2017. "Tax loss offset restrictions and biased perception of risky investments," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 222, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    4. repec:kap:theord:v:82:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s11238-016-9567-7 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2016. "Taming models of prospect theory in the Wild? Estimation of Vlcek and Hens (2011)," SAFE Working Paper Series 146, Research Center SAFE - Sustainable Architecture for Finance in Europe, Goethe University Frankfurt.
    6. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten, 2016. "On the applicability of maximum likelihood methods: From experimental to financial data," SAFE Working Paper Series 148, Research Center SAFE - Sustainable Architecture for Finance in Europe, Goethe University Frankfurt.
    7. Michael H. Birnbaum & Jeffrey P. Bahra, 2007. "Gain-Loss Separability and Coalescing in Risky Decision Making," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(6), pages 1016-1028, June.
    8. Baucells, Manel & Heukamp, Franz H., 2004. "Reevaluation of the results of Levy and Levy (2002a)," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 94(1), pages 15-21, May.
    9. Michael H. Birnbaum, 2005. "Three New Tests of Independence That Differentiate Models of Risky Decision Making," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(9), pages 1346-1358, September.
    10. Cumova, Denisa & Nawrocki, David, 2014. "Portfolio optimization in an upside potential and downside risk framework," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 68-89.
    11. Fang, Yi, 2012. "Aggregate investor preferences and beliefs in stock market: A stochastic dominance analysis," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 528-547.

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:49:y:2003:i:7:p:979-981. 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). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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 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.

    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.