Multi-Outcome Lotteries: Prospect Theory vs. Relative Utility
This paper discusses two approaches for the analysis of multi-outcome lotteries. The first uses Cumulative Prospect Theory. The second is the Relative Utility Function, which strongly resembles the utility function hypothesized by Markowitz (1952). It is shown that the relative utility model follows Expected Utility Theory with a transformed outcome domain. An illustrative example demonstrates that not only it is a simpler model, but it also provides more sound predictions regarding certainty equivalents of multi-outcome lotteries. The paper discusses estimation procedures for both models. It is noted that Cumulative Prospect Theory has been derived using two-outcome lotteries only, and it is hard to find any evidence in the literature of its parameters ever having been estimated by using lotteries with more than two outcomes. Least squares (mean) and quantile (including median) regression estimations are presented for the relative utility model. It turns out that the estimations for two- and three-outcome lotteries are essentially the same. This confirms the correctness of the model and vindicates the homogeneity of responses given by subjects. An additional advantage of the relative utility model is that it allows multi-outcome lotteries, together with the estimation results, to be presented on a single graph. This is not possible using Cumulative Prospect Theory.
|Date of creation:||28 May 2010|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
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.:
- Kontek, Krzysztof, 2010. "Mean, Median or Mode? A Striking Conclusion From Lottery Experiments," MPRA Paper 21758, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Krzysztof Kontek, 2009. "Lottery valuation using the aspiration / relative utility function," Working Papers 39, Department of Applied Econometrics, Warsaw School of Economics.
- John Hey & Andrea Morone & Ulrich Schmidt, 2009.
"Noise and bias in eliciting preferences,"
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty,
Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 213-235, December.
- John D Hey & Andrea Morone & Ulrich Schmidt, 2007. "Noise and Bias in Eliciting Preferences," Discussion Papers 07/04, Department of Economics, University of York.
- John D. Hey & Andrea Morone & Ulrich Schmidt, 2007. "Noise and Bias in Eliciting Preferences," Kiel Working Papers 1386, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
- Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979.
"Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,"
Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-91, March.
- Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7656, David K. Levine.
- Kontek, Krzysztof, 2009. "On Mental Transformations," MPRA Paper 16516, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Kontek, Krzysztof, 2010. "Density Based Regression for Inhomogeneous Data: Application to Lottery Experiments," MPRA Paper 22268, University Library of Munich, Germany.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:22947. 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: (Ekkehart Schlicht)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.