Show simple item record

FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorChung, Hui-Kuan
dc.contributor.authorGlimcher, Paul
dc.contributor.authorTymula, Agnieszka
dc.date.accessioned2021-10-12T05:26:05Z
dc.date.available2021-10-12T05:26:05Z
dc.date.issued2019en_AU
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2123/26415
dc.description.abstractProspect 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.isoenen_AU
dc.publisherAmerican Economic Associationen_AU
dc.relation.ispartofAMERICAN ECONOMIC JOURNAL: MICROECONOMICSen_AU
dc.rightsCopyright All Rights Reserveden_AU
dc.titleAn Experimental Comparison of Risky and Riskless Choice—Limitations of Prospect Theory and Expected Utility Theoryen_AU
dc.typeArticleen_AU
dc.identifier.doi10.1257/mic.20170112
dc.relation.arcDE150101032
usyd.facultySeS faculties schools::Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences::School of Economicsen_AU
usyd.citation.volume11en_AU
usyd.citation.issue3en_AU
usyd.citation.spage34en_AU
usyd.citation.epage67en_AU
workflow.metadata.onlyNoen_AU


Show simple item record

Associated file/s

Associated collections

Show simple item record

There are no previous versions of the item available.