Journal of Risk and Uncertainty

, Volume 48, Issue 1, pp 1–17 | Cite as

An experimental test of prospect theory for predicting choice under ambiguity

  • Amit Kothiyal
  • Vitalie Spinu
  • Peter P. Wakker


Prospect theory is the most popular theory for predicting decisions under risk. This paper investigates its predictive power for decisions under ambiguity, using its specification through the source method. We find that it outperforms its most popular alternatives, including subjective expected utility, Choquet expected utility, and three multiple priors theories: maxmin expected utility, maxmax expected utility, and a-maxmin expected utility.


Expected Utility Prospect Theory Loss Aversion Ambiguity Aversion Decision Weight 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



We are grateful to John Hey, Gianna Lotito, and Anna Maffioletti for providing us with their data set, their analyses, and many explanations.

Supplementary material

11166_2014_9185_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (191 kb)
(PDF 191 KB)


  1. Abdellaoui, M., Baillon, A., Placido, L., Wakker, P.P. (2011). The rich domain of uncertainty: source functions and their experimental implementation. American Economic Review, 101, 695–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abdellaoui, M., Vossmann, F., Weber, M. (2005). Choice-based elicitation and decomposition of decision weights for gains and losses under uncertainty. Management Science, 51, 1384–1399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahn, D.S., Choi, S., Gale, D., Kariv, S. (2013). Estimating ambiguity aversion in a portfolio choice experiment. Quantitative Economics, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  4. Andersen, S., Fountain, J., Harrison, G.W., Hole, A.R., Rutström, E.E. (2012). Inferring beliefs as subjectively imprecise probabilities. Theory and Decision, 73, 161–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anscombe, F.J., & Aumann, R.J. (1963). A definition of subjective probability. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 34, 199–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baillon, A., & Bleichrodt, H. (2012). Testing ambiguity models through the measurement of probabilities for gains and losses. The Netherlands: Erasmus School of Economics, Erasmus University, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
  7. Barberis, N., Huang, M., Santos, T. (2001). Prospect theory and asset prices. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 66, 1–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barkan, R., & Busemeyer, J.R. (1999). Changing plans: dynamic inconsistency and the effect of experience on the reference point. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 6, 547–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bernasconi, M. (1994). Nonlinear preference and two-stage lotteries: theories and evidence. Economic Journal, 104, 54–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Budescu, D.V., & Fischer, I. (2001). The same but different: an empirical investigation of the reducibility principle. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 14, 187–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Camerer, C.F. (1989). An experimental test of several generalized utility theories. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2, 61–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carbone, E., & Hey, J.D. (2001). A test of the principle of optimality. Theory and Decision, 50, 263–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chateauneuf, A. (1991). On the use of capacities in modeling uncertainty aversion and risk aversion. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 20, 343–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chateauneuf, A., Eichberger, J., Grant, S. (2007). Choice under uncertainty with the best and worst in mind: NEO-additive capacities. Journal of Economic Theory, 137, 538–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chateauneuf, A., & Faro, J.H. (2009). Ambiguity through confidence functions. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 45, 535–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chesson, H.W., & Viscusi, W.K. (2003). Commonalities in time and ambiguity aversion for long-term risks. Theory and Decision, 54, 57–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Choi, S., Fishman, R., Gale, D., Kariv, S. (2007). Consistency and heterogeneity of individual behavior under uncertainty. American Economic Review, 97, 1921–1938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cozman, F.G. (2012). Sets of probability distributions, independence, and convexity. Synthese, 186, 577–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cubitt, P.R., Starmer, C., Sugden, R. (1998). Dynamic choice and the common ratio effect: an experimental investigation. Economic Journal, 108, 1362–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Diecidue, E., Wakker, P.P., Zeelenberg, M. (2007). Eliciting decision weights by adapting de Finetti’s betting-odds method to prospect theory. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 34, 179–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dominiak, A., Duersch, P., Lefort, J.-P. (2012). A dynamic Ellsberg urn experiment. Games and Economic Behavior, 75, 625–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Drèze, J.H. (1961). Les fondements logiques de l’utilité cardinale et de la probabilité subjective. La Décision (pp. 73–83). Paris: CNRS.Google Scholar
  23. Drèze, J.H. (1987). Essays on economic decision under uncertainty. London: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ergin, H., & Gul, F. (2009). A theory of subjective compound lotteries. Journal of Economic Theory, 144, 899–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eron, S.A., & Schmeidler, D. (2012). Purely subjective maxmin expected utility. Mimeo.Google Scholar
  26. Etner, J., Jeleva, M., Tallon, J.M. (2012). Decision theory under ambiguity. Journal of Economic Surveys, 26, 234–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 817–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gächter, S., Herrmann, A., Johnson, E.J. (2007). Individual-level loss aversion in riskless and risky choice. Working Paper, University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
  29. Gajdos, T., Hayashi, T., Tallon, J.M., Vergnaud, J.C. (2008). Attitude towards imprecise information. Journal of Economic Theory, 140, 27–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ghirardato, P., Maccheroni, F., Marinacci, M. (2004). Differentiating ambiguity and ambiguity attitude. Journal of Economic Theory, 118, 133–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gilboa, I. (1987). Expected utility with purely subjective non-additive probabilities. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 16, 65–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gilboa, I., & Schmeidler, D. (1989). Maxmin expected utility with a non-unique prior. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 18, 141–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gilboa, I., Postlewaite, A., Schmeidler, D. (2012). Rationality of belief or: Why Savage’s axioms are neither necessary nor sufficient for rationality. Synthese, 187, 11–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Glöckner, A., & Pachur, T. (2012). Cognitive models of risky choice: parameter stability and predictive accuracy of prospect theory. Cognition, 123, 21–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Goldstein, W.M., & Einhorn, H.J. (1987). Expression theory and the preference reversal phenomena. Psychological Review, 94, 236–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Grabisch, M., & Labreuche, C. (2008). A decade of application of the Choquet and Sugeno integrals in multi-criteria decision aid. 4OR, 6, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Harless, D.W., & Camerer, C.F. (1994). The predictive utility of generalized expected utility theories. Econometrica, 62, 1251–1289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hayashi, T., & Wada, R. (2010). Choice with imprecise information: an experimental approach. Theory and Decision, 69, 355–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hey, J.D., & Di Cagno, D. (1990). Circles and triangles: an experimental estimation of indifference lines in the Marschak-Machina triangle. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 3, 279–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hey, J.D., & Knoll, J.A. (2011). Strategies in dynamic decision making – an experimental investigation of the rationality of decision behaviour. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32, 399–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hey, J.D., & Lotito, G. (2009). Naïve, resolute or sophisticated? A study of dynamic decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 38, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hey, J.D., Lotito, G., Maffioletti, A. (2010). The descriptive and predictive adequacy of theories of decision making under uncertainty/ambiguity. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 41, 81–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hey, J.D., Lotito, G., Maffioletti, A. (2011). The descriptive and predictive adequacy of theories of decision making under uncertainty/ambiguity. Corrigendum, Mimeo.Google Scholar
  44. Hey, J.D., & Orme, C. (1994). Investigating generalizations of expected utility theory using experimental data. Econometrica, 62, 1291–1326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hey, J.D., & Panaccione, L. (2011). Dynamic decision making: what do people do?Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 42, 85–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hogarth, R.M., & Einhorn, H.J. (1990). Venture theory: a model of decision weights. Management Science, 36, 780–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hsu, M., Bhatt, M., Adolphs, R., Tranel, D., Camerer, C.F. (2005). Neural systems responding to degrees of uncertainty in human decision making. Science, 310, 1680–1683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Huettel, S.A., Stowe, C.J., Gordon, E.M., Warner, B.T., Platt, M.L. (2006). Neural signatures of economic preferences for risk and ambiguity. Neuron, 49, 765–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ivanov, A. (2011). Attitudes to ambiguity in one-shot normal-form games: an experimental study. Games and Economic Behavior, 71, 366–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Jaffray, J.-Y. (1994). Dynamic decision making with belief functions. In R.R. Yager, M. Fedrizzi, J. Kacprzyk (Eds.), Advances in the Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence (pp. 331–352). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  51. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Klibanoff, P., Marinacci, M., Mukerji, S. (2005). A smooth model of decision making under ambiguity. Econometrica, 73, 1849–1892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Köbberling, V., & Wakker, P.P. (2003). Preference foundations for nonexpected utility: a generalized and simplified technique. Mathematics of Operations Research, 28, 395–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Luce, R.D., & Raiffa, H. (1957). Games and decisions. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  55. Maafi, H. (2011). Preference reversals under ambiguity. Management Science, 57, 2054–2066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Maccheroni, F., Marinacci, M., Rustichini, A. (2006). Ambiguity aversion, robustness, and the variational representation of preferences. Econometrica, 74, 1447–1498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Machina, M.J., & Schmeidler, D. (1992). A more robust definition of subjective probability. Econometrica, 60, 745–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Narukawa, Y., & Torra, V. (2011). On distorted probabilities and m-separable fuzzy measures. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 52, 1325–1336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Nascimento, L., & Riella, G. (2010). On the uses of the monotonicity and independence axioms in models of ambiguity aversion. Mathematical Social Sciences, 59, 326–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Nau, R.F. (2006). Uncertainty aversion with second-order utilities and probabilities. Management Science, 52, 136–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Neilson, W.S. (2010). A simplified axiomatic approach to ambiguity aversion. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 41, 113–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Prelec, D. (1998). The probability weighting function. Econometrica, 66, 497–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Quiggin, J. (1982). A theory of anticipated utility. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, 3, 323–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rabin, M. (2000). Risk aversion and expected-utility theory: a calibration theorem. Econometrica, 68, 1281–1292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rachlin, H., & Green, L. (1972). Commitment, choice and self-control. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 17, 15–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rosenblatt-Wisch, R. (2008). Loss aversion in aggregate macroeconomic time series. European Economic Review, 52, 1140–1159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Savage, L.J. (1954). The foundations of statistics. New York: Wiley (Second edition 1972, New York: Dover Publications.)Google Scholar
  68. Schmeidler, D. (1989). Subjective probability and expected utility without additivity. Econometrica, 57, 571–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Siniscalchi, M. (2006). A behavioral characterization of plausible priors. Journal of Economic Theory, 128, 91–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Siniscalchi, M. (2009). Vector expected utility and attitudes toward variation. Econometrica, 77, 801–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sipos, J. (1979). Integral with respect to a pre-measure. Math. Slovaca, 29, 141–155.Google Scholar
  72. Sopher, B., & Gigliotti, G. (1993). A test of generalized expected utility theory. Theory and Decision, 35, 75–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Starmer, C. (1992). Testing new theories of choice under uncertainty using the common consequence effect. Review of Economic Studies, 59, 813–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Strzalecki, T. (2011). Axiomatic foundations of multiplier preferences. Econometrica, 79, 47–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wakker, P.P. (2010). Prospect theory for risk and ambiguity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Wald, A. (1950). Statistical decision functions. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  78. Wilcox, N.T. (2008). Stochastic models for binary discrete choice under risk: a critical primer and econometric comparison In J.C. Cox, & G.W. Harrison (Eds.), Risk aversion in experiments; Research in experimental economics (Vol. 12, pp. 197–292). Emerald, Bingley.Google Scholar
  79. Yechiam, E., Stout, J.C., Busemeyer, J.R., Rock, S.L., Finn, P.R. (2005). Individual differences in the response to forgone payoffs: an examination of high functioning drug abusers. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18, 97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amit Kothiyal
    • 1
  • Vitalie Spinu
    • 2
  • Peter P. Wakker
    • 3
  1. 1.Max Planck Institute for Human DevelopmentBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Anderson School of Management, UCLALos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.Erasmus School of EconomicsErasmus UniversityRotterdamthe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations