Probability Weighting Functions
In this paper we begin by stressing the empirical importance of non-linear weighting of probabilities, which expected utility theory (EU) is unable to accommodate. We then go on to outline three stylized facts on non-linear weighting that any alternative theory of risk must address. These are that people: overweight small probabilities and underweight large ones (S1); do not choose stochastically dominated options when such dominance is obvious (S2); ignore very small probabilities and code extremely large probabilities as one (S3). We then show that the concept of a probability weighting function (PWF) is crucial in addressing S1-S3. A PWF is not, however, a theory of risk. PWF's need to be embedded within some theory of risk in order to have significant predictive content. We ouline the two main alternative theories that are relevant in this regard: rank dependent utility (RDU) and cumulative prospect theory (CP). RDU and CP explain S1,S2 but not S3. We conclude by outlining the recent proposal for composite prospect theory (CPP) that uses the composite Prelec probability weighting function (CPF). CPF is axiomatically founded, and is flexible and parsimonious. CPP can explain all three stylized facts S1,S2,S3.
|Date of creation:||Apr 2010|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Department of Economics University of Leicester, University Road. Leicester. LE1 7RH. UK|
Phone: +44 (0)116 252 2887
Fax: +44 (0)116 252 2908
Web page: http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/economics
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:|| Web: http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/economics/research/discussion-papers Email: |
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Ali al-Nowaihi & Sanjit Dhami, 2010. "Composite Prospect Theory: A proposal to combine ‘prospect theory’ and ‘cumulative prospect theory’," Discussion Papers in Economics 10/11, Department of Economics, University of Leicester.
- Bar-Ilan, Avner & Sacerdote, Bruce, 2004. "The Response of Criminals and Noncriminals to Fines," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 47(1), pages 1-17, April.
- Ali al-Nowaihi & Ian Bradley & Sanjit Dhami, 2006. "The Utility Function Under Prospect Theory," Discussion Papers in Economics 06/15, Department of Economics, University of Leicester.
- Avner Bar-Ilan & Bruce Sacerdote, 2001. "The Response to Fines and Probability of Detection in a Series of Experiments," NBER Working Papers 8638, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:lec:leecon:10/10. 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: (Mrs. Alexandra Mazzuoccolo)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.