IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/wsi/wschap/9789814417358_0008.html

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

In: HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I

Author

Listed:
  • Peter P. Wakker

Abstract

Levy and Levy (Management Science 2002) 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, 2013. "The Data of Levy and Levy (2002) “Prospect Theory: Much Ado About Nothing?” Actually Support Prospect Theory," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 8, pages 145-147, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    • Handle: RePEc:wsi:wschap:9789814417358_0008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814417358_0008
    Download Restriction: Ebook Access is available upon purchase.
    File URL: https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/9789814417358_0008
    Download Restriction: Ebook Access is available upon purchase.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Rosenblatt-Wisch, Rina, 2008. "Loss aversion in aggregate macroeconomic time series," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 52(7), pages 1140-1159, October.
    3. Topaloglou, Nikolas & Tsionas, Mike G., 2020. "Stochastic dominance tests," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten, 2017. "On the applicability of maximum likelihood methods: From experimental to financial data," SAFE Working Paper Series 148, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2017.
    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. Doron Sonsino & Mosi Rosenboim & Tal Shavit, 2017. "The valuation “by-tranche” of composite investment instruments," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 82(3), pages 353-393, March.
    12. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2019. "Taming models of prospect theory in the wild? Estimation of Vlcek and Hens (2011)," SAFE Working Paper Series 146, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2019.
    13. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:wsi:wschap:9789814417358_0008. 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: Tai Tone Lim (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.worldscientific.com/page/worldscibooks .

    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.