Journal of Risk and Uncertainty

, Volume 33, Issue 3, pp 197–215 | Cite as

Disappointment without prior expectation: a unifying perspective on decision under risk

  • Philippe DelquiéEmail author
  • Alessandra Cillo


The central idea of Disappointment theory is that an individual forms an expectation about a risky alternative, and may experience disappointment if the outcome eventually obtained falls short of the expectation. We abandon the hypothesis of a well-defined prior expectation: disappointment feelings may arise from comparing the outcome received with anyof the gamble’s outcomes that the individual failed to get. This leads to a new, general form of Disappointment model. It encompasses Rank Dependent Utility with an explicit one-parameter probability transformation, and Risk-Value models with a generic risk measure including Variance, providing a unifying behavioral foundation for these models.


Disappointment theory Rank Dependent utility Risk-value models Mean-variance Expected Utility violations 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abdellaoui, Mohammed (2000). “Parameter-Free Elicitation of Utility and Probability Weighting Functions,” Management Science 46, 1497–1512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell, David (1983). “Risk Premiums for Decision Regret,” Management Science 29(10), 1156–1166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell, David (1985). “Disappointment in Decision Making under Uncertainty,” Operations Research 33, 1–27.Google Scholar
  4. Bleichrodt, Han and José Luis Pinto (2000). “A Parameter-Free Elicitation of the Probability Weighting Function in Medical Decision Analysis,” Management Science 46, 1485–1496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Delquié, Philippe and Alessandra Cillo (2006). “Expectations, Disappointment, and Rank-Dependent Probability Weighting,” Theory and Decision 60(2–3), 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Diecidue, Enrico and Peter Wakker (2001). “On the Intuition of Rank-Dependent Utility,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 23, 281–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gul, Faruk (1991). “A Theory of Disappointment Aversion,” Econometrica 59, 667–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jia, Jianmin and James S. Dyer (1996). “A Standard Measure of Risk and Risk-Value Models,” Management Science 45, 519–532.Google Scholar
  9. Jia, Jianmin, Dyer, James S., and John C. Butler (2001). “Generalized Disappointment Models,”Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 22(1), 59–78.Google Scholar
  10. Kahneman, Daniel and Amos Tversky (1979). “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,” Econometrica 47, 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Loomes, Graham and Robert Sugden (1986). “Disappointment and Dynamic Consistency in Choice under Uncertainty,” Review of Economic Studies 53, 271–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Machina, Mark J (1982). “Expected Utility Analysis Without the Independence Axiom,” Econometrica 50, 277–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mellers, Barbara A., Alan Schwartz, Katty Ho, and Ilana Ritov (1997). “Decision Affect Theory: Emotional Reactions to the Outcomes of Risky Options,” Psychological Science 8(6), 423–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ordóñez, Lisa D., Connolly, Terry, and Richard Coughlan (2000). “Multiple Reference Points in Satisfaction and Fairness Assessment,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 13(3), 329–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Quiggin, John (1982). “A Theory of Anticipated Utility,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 3, 323–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Tversky, Amos and Daniel Kahneman (1992). “Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5, 297–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. van Dijk, Wilco W., and Marcel Zeelenberg (2002). “What Do We Talk about When We Talk about Disappointment? Distinguishing Outcome-Related Disappointment from Person-Related Disappointment,” Cognition and Emotion 16(6), 787–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wu, George and Richard Gonzalez (1996). “Curvature of the Probability Weighting Function,” Management Science 42, 1677–1690.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.INSEAD, Decision Sciences AreaBoulevard de ConstanceFontainebleauFrance

Personalised recommendations