IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wut/journl/v3y2012p23-36id1042.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of the valuations of alternatives based on cumulative prospect theory and almost stochastic dominance

Author

Listed:
  • Ewa Michalska
  • Renata Dudzińska-Baryła

Abstract

There are commonly accepted and objective decision rules, which are consistent with rationality, for example stochastic dominance rules. But, as can be seen in many research studies in behavioral economics, decision makers do not always act rationally. Rules based on cumulative prospect theory or almost stochastic dominance are relatively new tools which model real choices. Both approaches take into account some behavioral factors. The aim of this paper is to check the consistency of orders of the valuations of random alternatives based on these behavioral rules. The order of the alternatives is generated by a preference relation over the decision set. In this paper, we show that the methodology for creating rankings based on total orders can be used for the preference relations considered, because they enable comparison of all the elements in a set of random alternatives. For almost second degree stochastic dominance, this is possible due to its particular properties, which stochastic dominance does not possess.

Suggested Citation

  • Ewa Michalska & Renata Dudzińska-Baryła, 2012. "Comparison of the valuations of alternatives based on cumulative prospect theory and almost stochastic dominance," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 22(3), pages 23-36.
    • Handle: RePEc:wut:journl:v:3:y:2012:p:23-36:id:1042
    DOI: 10.5277/ord120302
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ord.pwr.edu.pl/assets/papers_archive/1042%20-%20published.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.5277/ord120302?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    2. G. Hanoch & H. Levy, 1969. "The Efficiency Analysis of Choices Involving Risk," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 36(3), pages 335-346.
    3. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Harry Markowitz, 1952. "Portfolio Selection," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 7(1), pages 77-91, March.
    5. Levy, Haim & Wiener, Zvi, 2013. "Prospect theory and utility theory: Temporary versus permanent attitude toward risk," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 1-23.
    6. Haim Levy, 1992. "Stochastic Dominance and Expected Utility: Survey and Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(4), pages 555-593, April.
    7. Moshe Leshno & Haim Levy, 2002. "Preferred by "All" and Preferred by "Most" Decision Makers: Almost Stochastic Dominance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(8), pages 1074-1085, August.
    8. Haim Levy & Moshe Leshno & Boaz Leibovitch, 2010. "Economically relevant preferences for all observed epsilon," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 153-178, April.
    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. Helena Gaspars-Wieloch, 2018. "The Impact of the Structure of the Payoff Matrix on the Final Decision made Under Uncertainty," Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research (APJOR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 35(01), pages 1-27, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. repec:wut:journl:v:3:y:2012:id:1042 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Hooi Hooi Lean & Michael McAleer & Wing-Keung Wong, 2013. "Risk-averse and Risk-seeking Investor Preferences for Oil Spot and Futures," Documentos de Trabajo del ICAE 2013-31, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Instituto Complutense de Análisis Económico, revised Aug 2013.
    3. Moshe Levy & Haim Levy, 2013. "Prospect Theory: Much Ado About Nothing?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 7, pages 129-144, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Haim Levy & Enrico G. De Giorgi & Thorsten Hens, 2012. "Two Paradigms and Nobel Prizes in Economics: a Contradiction or Coexistence?," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 18(2), pages 163-182, March.
    5. Caporin, Massimiliano & Costola, Michele & Jannin, Gregory & Maillet, Bertrand, 2018. "“On the (Ab)use of Omega?”," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 11-33.
    6. Haim Levy, 2008. "First Degree Stochastic Dominance Violations: Decision Weights and Bounded Rationality," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(528), pages 759-774, April.
    7. Levy, Haim & Levy, Moshe, 2002. "Experimental test of the prospect theory value function: A stochastic dominance approach," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 1058-1081, November.
    8. Haim Levy, 2010. "The CAPM is Alive and Well: A Review and Synthesis," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 16(1), pages 43-71, January.
    9. Peter J. Phillips & Gabriela Pohl, 2017. "Terrorist choice: a stochastic dominance and prospect theory analysis," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(2), pages 150-164, March.
    10. Levy, Moshe, 2009. "Almost Stochastic Dominance and stocks for the long run," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 194(1), pages 250-257, April.
    11. Lean, Hooi Hooi & McAleer, Michael & Wong, Wing-Keung, 2015. "Preferences of risk-averse and risk-seeking investors for oil spot and futures before, during and after the Global Financial Crisis," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 204-216.
    12. Lizyayev, Andrey & Ruszczyński, Andrzej, 2012. "Tractable Almost Stochastic Dominance," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 218(2), pages 448-455.
    13. Xu, Guo & Wing-Keung, Wong & Lixing, Zhu, 2013. "Almost Stochastic Dominance for Risk-Averse and Risk-Seeking Investors," MPRA Paper 51744, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Nowak, Maciej, 2004. "Preference and veto thresholds in multicriteria analysis based on stochastic dominance," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 158(2), pages 339-350, October.
    15. Hübner, Georges & Lejeune, Thomas, 2021. "Mental accounts with horizon and asymmetry preferences," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    16. Hooi Hooi Lean & Michael McAleer & Wing-Keung Wong, 2010. "Market Efficiency of Oil Spot and Futures: A Stochastic Dominance Approach," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-705, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.
    17. Guo, Xu & Wong, Wing-Keung & Zhu, Lixing, 2013. "Almost Stochastic Dominance and Moments," MPRA Paper 49274, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Zhihui Lv & Amanda M. Y. Chu & Wing Keung Wong & Thomas C. Chiang, 2021. "The maximum-return-and-minimum-volatility effect: evidence from choosing risky and riskless assets to form a portfolio," Risk Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 23(1), pages 97-122, June.
    19. Simone Cerreia-Vioglio & Fabio Maccheroni & Massimo Marinacci, 2017. "Stochastic Dominance Analysis Without the Independence Axiom," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(4), pages 1097-1109, April.
    20. Ephraim Clark & Zhuo Qiao & Wing-Keung Wong, 2016. "Theories Of Risk: Testing Investor Behavior On The Taiwan Stock And Stock Index Futures Markets," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 54(2), pages 907-924, April.
    21. Guo, Xu & Zhu, Xuehu & Wong, Wing-Keung & Zhu, Lixing, 2013. "A note on almost stochastic dominance," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 121(2), pages 252-256.

    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:wut:journl:v:3:y:2012:p:23-36:id:1042. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Adam Kasperski (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iopwrpl.html .

    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.