An Experimental Comparison of Risky and Riskless Choice—Limitations of Prospect Theory and Expected Utility Theory
Field | Value | Language |
dc.contributor.author | Chung, Hui-Kuan | |
dc.contributor.author | Glimcher, Paul | |
dc.contributor.author | Tymula, Agnieszka | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-10-12T05:26:05Z | |
dc.date.available | 2021-10-12T05:26:05Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2019 | en_AU |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/2123/26415 | |
dc.description.abstract | Prospect theory, used descriptively for decisions under both risk and certainty, presumes concave utility over gains and convex utility over losses; a pattern widely seen in lottery tasks. Although such discontinuous gain-loss reference-dependence is also used to model riskless choices, only limited empirical evidence supports this use. In incentive-compatible experiments, we find that gain-loss reflection effects are not observed under riskless choice as predicted by prospect theory, even while in the same subjects gain-loss reflection effects are observed under risk. Our empirical results challenge the application of choice models across both risky and riskless domains. | en_AU |
dc.language.iso | en | en_AU |
dc.publisher | American Economic Association | en_AU |
dc.relation.ispartof | AMERICAN ECONOMIC JOURNAL: MICROECONOMICS | en_AU |
dc.rights | Copyright All Rights Reserved | en_AU |
dc.title | An Experimental Comparison of Risky and Riskless Choice—Limitations of Prospect Theory and Expected Utility Theory | en_AU |
dc.type | Article | en_AU |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1257/mic.20170112 | |
dc.relation.arc | DE150101032 | |
usyd.faculty | SeS faculties schools::Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences::School of Economics | en_AU |
usyd.citation.volume | 11 | en_AU |
usyd.citation.issue | 3 | en_AU |
usyd.citation.spage | 34 | en_AU |
usyd.citation.epage | 67 | en_AU |
workflow.metadata.only | No | en_AU |
Associated file/s
Associated collections