You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
Resolving Inconsistencies in Utility Measurement under Risk: Tests of Generalizations of Expected Utility
Han Bleichrodt, Jose Maria Abellan-Perpiñan, Jose Luis Pinto-Prades and Ildefonso Mendez-Martinez
Vol. 53, No. 3 (Mar., 2007), pp. 469-482
Published by: INFORMS
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20110711
Page Count: 14
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Expected utility, Prospect theory, Term weighting, Loss aversion, Health outcomes, Decision analysis, Statistical median, Risk aversion, Utility functions, Weighting functions
Were these topics helpful?See somethings inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Preview not available
This paper explores inconsistencies that occur in utility measurement under risk when expected utility theory is assumed and the contribution that prospect theory and some other generalizations of expected utility can make to the resolution of these inconsistencies. We used five methods to measure utilities under risk and found clear violations of expected utility. Of the theories studied, prospect theory was the most consistent with our data. The main improvement of prospect theory over expected utility was in comparisons between a riskless and a risky prospect (riskless-risk methods). We observed no improvement over expected utility in comparisons between two risky prospects (risk-risk methods). An explanation for the latter observation may be that there was less distortion in probability weighting in the interval [0.10, 0.20] than has commonly been observed.
Management Science © 2007 INFORMS