2020 | 30 | 4 | 39-56
Article title

From expected utility theory to prospect theory: tracking down the experimental path after forty years

Title variants
Languages of publication
The expected utility theory axioms have been studied experimentally. Three of the experiments are a repetition of an earlier test in slightly changed circumstances, while the other two are original. The participants were incentivised with rewards, which did not happen in the replicated tests. The results confirmed the degeneration of the expected utility theory as a scientific research program. The evidence that resulted from the tests supported the hypothesis on the cumulative prospect theory predicting facts not forecasted by the EUT.
Physical description
  • Department of Microeconomics, Poznań University of Economics and Business, al. Niepodległości 10, 61-875 Poznań, Poland
  • ABDELLAOUI M., BLEICHRODT H., PARASCHIV C., Loss Aversion under Prospect Theory: A Parameter-Free Measurement, Manage. Sci., 2007, 53 (10), 1659–1674.
  • ABDELLAOUI M., KEMEL E., Eliciting Prospect Theory when Consequences Are Measured in Time Units: Time is Not Money, Manage. Sci., 2014, 60 (7), 1844–1859.
  • ALLAIS M., The Behavior of Rational Man in the Face of Risk. Critique of the Postulates and Axioms of the American School, Econometrica, 1953, 21 (4), 503–546 (in French).
  • ALLAIS M., The So-Called Allais Paradox and Rational Decisions under Uncertainty, [In:] M. Allais, O. Hagen (Eds.), Expected Utility and the Allais Paradox, D. Reidel, Dordrecht 1979, 437–683.
  • Expected Utility and the Allais Paradox, Allais M., O. Hagen (Eds.), D. Reidel, Dordrecht 1979.
  • ANDREONI J., SPRENGER C., Certain and Uncertain Utility: The Allais Paradox and Five Decision Theory Phenomena, Researchgate, 2010.
  • BERNOULLI D., Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk, Econometrica, 1954, 22 (1), 23–36.
  • BOOIJ A.S., VAN DE KUILEN G., A Parameter-Free Analysis of the Utility of Money for the General Population under Prospect Theory, J. Econ. Psych., 2009, 30 (4), 651–666.
  • BOOIJ A.S., VAN PRAAG B.M.S., VAN DE KUILEN G., A Parametric Analysis of Prospect Theory’s Functionals for the General Population, Theory and Decision, 2010, 68 (1–2), 115–148.
  • CAMERER C.F., Prospect theory in the wild: Evidence from the field, [In:] D. Kahneman, A. Tversky (Eds.), Choices, Values, and Frames, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2000, 288–300.
  • DING S., LUGOVSKYY V., PUZZELLO D., TUCKER S., WILLIAMS A., Cash versus Extra-Credit Incentives in Experimental Asset Markets, J. Econ. Beh. Org., 2018, 150, 19–27.
  • GROSSMAN P., KOMAI M., Incentivizing Experiments: Monetary Rewards versus Extra Credits, St. Cloud State University Economics Faculty Working Papers, 2006, 9, 1–33.
  • GUREVICH G., KLIGER D., LEVY O., Decision-Making under Uncertainty. A Field Study of Cumulative Prospect Theory, J. Bank. Fin., 2009, 33 (7), 1221–1229.
  • HOLT C.A., Preference Reversals and the Independence Axiom, American Economic Review, 1986, 76 (3), 508–515.
  • KAHNEMAN D., TVERSKY A., Prospect Theory. An Analysis of Decision under Risk, Econometrica, 1979, 47 (2), 263–291.
  • KAHNEMAN D., Thinking, Fast and Slow, Ferrar Straus Giroux, New York 2012, 267.
  • KARNI E., SAFRA Z., Preference Reversal and the Observability of Preferences by Experimental Methods, Econometrica, 1987, 55 (3), 675–685.
  • LOOMES G., STARMER C., SUGDEN R., Observing Violations of Transitivity by Experimental Methods, Econometrica, 1991, 59 (2), 425–439.
  • LOOMES G., SUGDEN R., Regret theory. An alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty, Econ. J., 1982, 92 (4), 805–824.
  • LUCCASSEN A., THOMAS K., Monetary incentives versus class credit: Evidence from a large classroom trust experiment, Econ. Lett., 2014, 123 (2), 232–235.
  • MACCRIMMON K.R., Descriptive and Normative Implications of the Decision-Theory Postulates, [In:] K. Borch, J. Mossin (Eds.), Risk and Uncertainty, MacMillan, London 1968, 3–23.
  • MACCRIMMON K.R., LARSSON S., Utility Theory: Axioms versus Paradoxes, [In:] M. Allais, O. Hagen (Eds.), Expected Utility and the Allais Paradox, D. Reidel, Dordrecht 1979, 333–409.
  • MACHINA M., Expected Utility. Analysis without the Independence Axiom, Econometrica, 1982, 50 (2), 277–323.
  • MARKOWITZ H., The Utility of Wealth, J. Polit. Econ., 1952, 60 (2), 151–158.
  • MOSKOWITZ H., Effects of Problem Representation and Feedback on Rational Behavior in Allais and Morlat-Type Problems, Dec. Sci., 1974, 5 (2), 225–241.
  • PENNINGS J.M.E., SMIDTS A., The Shape of Utility Functions and Organizational Behavior, Manage. Sci., 2003, 49 (9), 1251–1263.
  • SAVAGE L.J., The Foundations of Statistics, Dover Publications, Inc., New York 1972.
  • SCHMIDT U., TRAUB S., An Experimental Test of Loss Aversion, J. Risk Uncert., 2002, 25 (3), 233–249.
  • SEGAL U., Does the Preference Reversal Phenomenon Necessarily Contradict the Independence Axiom?, Am. Econ. Rev., 1988, 78 (1), 233–236.
  • SLOVIC P., TVERSKY A., Who Accepts Savage’s Axioms?, Beh. Sci., 1974, 19, 6, 368–378.
  • SMITH V.L., Economics in the Laboratory, J. Econ. Persp., 1994, 8 (1), 113–131.
  • TVERSKY A., KAHNEMAN D., The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice, Science, 1981, 211 (4481), 453–458.
  • TVERSKY A., KAHNEMAN D., Advances in Prospect Theory. Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty, J. Risk Uncert., 1992, 5 (4), 297–323.
  • WILLIAMS A.C., Attitudes toward Speculative Risks as an Indicator of Attitudes toward Pure Risks, J. Risk Insur., 1966, 33 (4), 577–586.
  • VON GAUDECKER H., VAN SOEST A., WENGSTRÖM E., Heterogeneity in Risky Choice Behavior in a Broad Population, Amer. Econ. Rev., 2011, 101 (2), 664–694.
  • VON NEUMANN J., MORGENSTERN O., Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New York 1953.
Document Type
Publication order reference
YADDA identifier
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.