Expected utility theory and prospect theory: one wedding and a decent funeral

被引:217
|
作者
Harrison, Glenn W. [1 ]
Rutstrom, E. Elisabet [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Cent Florida, Dept Econ, Coll Business Adm, Orlando, FL 32816 USA
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
Expected utility theory; Prospect theory; Mixture models; CHOICE CONTINGENT-VALUATION; RISK-AVERSION; MODEL; VARIABLES; DECISION; TESTS;
D O I
10.1007/s10683-008-9203-7
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Choice behavior is typically evaluated by assuming that the data is generated by one latent decision-making process or another. What if there are two (or more) latent decision-making processes generating the observed choices? Some choices might then be better characterized as being generated by one process, and other choices by the other process. A finite mixture model can be used to estimate the parameters of each decision process while simultaneously estimating the probability that each process applies to the sample. We consider the canonical case of lottery choices in a laboratory experiment and assume that the data is generated by expected utility theory and prospect theory decision rules. We jointly estimate the parameters of each theory as well as the fraction of choices characterized by each. The methodology provides the wedding invitation, and the data consummates the ceremony followed by a decent funeral for the representative agent model that assumes only one type of decision process. The evidence suggests support for each theory, and goes further to identify under what demographic domains one can expect to see one theory perform better than the other. We therefore propose a reconciliation of the debate over two of the dominant theories of choice under risk, at least for the tasks and samples we consider. The methodology is broadly applicable to a range of debates over competing theories generated by experimental and non-experimental data.
引用
收藏
页码:133 / 158
页数:26
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Expected utility theory and prospect theory: one wedding and a decent funeral
    Glenn W. Harrison
    E. Elisabet Rutström
    Experimental Economics, 2009, 12
  • [2] The Limitations of Prospect Theory and the Expected Utility Theory: A New Theory
    Alghalith, Moawia
    ATLANTIC ECONOMIC JOURNAL, 2010, 38 (02) : 243 - 244
  • [3] Expected Utility Theory, Prospect Theory, and Regret Theory Compared for Prediction of Route Choice Behavior
    Ramos, Giselle de Moraes
    Daamen, Winnie
    Hoogendoorn, Serge
    TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD, 2011, (2230) : 19 - 28
  • [4] Maximum Expected Utility Portfolios versus Prospect Theory Approach
    Dudzinska-Baryla, Renata
    Kopanska-Brodka, Donata
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE 25TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MATHEMATICAL METHODS IN ECONOMICS 2007, 2007, : 63 - 70
  • [5] Explaining the energy efficiency gap - Expected Utility Theory versus Cumulative Prospect Theory
    Haeckel, Bjoern
    Pfosser, Stefan
    Traenkler, Timm
    ENERGY POLICY, 2017, 111 : 414 - 426
  • [6] The predictive validity of prospect theory versus expected utility in health utility measurement
    Maria Abellan-Perpinan, Jose
    Bleichrodt, Han
    Luis Pinto-Prades, Jose
    JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2009, 28 (06) : 1039 - 1047
  • [7] Why do people pay taxes? Prospect theory versus expected utility theory
    Dhami, Sanjit
    al-Nowaihi, Ali
    JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC BEHAVIOR & ORGANIZATION, 2007, 64 (01) : 171 - 192
  • [8] Expected utility versus cumulative prospect theory in an evolutionary model of bargaining
    Khan, Abhimanyu
    JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC DYNAMICS & CONTROL, 2022, 137
  • [9] An Experimental Comparison of Risky and Riskless Choice-Limitations of Prospect Theory and Expected Utility Theory
    Chung, Hui-Kuan
    Glimcher, Paul
    Tymula, Agnieszka
    AMERICAN ECONOMIC JOURNAL-MICROECONOMICS, 2019, 11 (03) : 34 - 67
  • [10] Quantum decision theory augments rank-dependent expected utility and Cumulative Prospect Theory
    Ferro, Giuseppe M.
    Kovalenko, Tatyana
    Sornette, Didier
    JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC PSYCHOLOGY, 2021, 86