A parametric analysis of prospect theory’s functionals for the general population
This article presents the results of an experiment that completely measures the utility function and probability weighting function for different positive and negative monetary outcomes, using a representative sample of N = 1,935 from the general public. The results confirm earlier findings in the lab, suggesting that utility is less pronounced than what is found in classical measurements where expected utility is assumed. Utility for losses is found to be convex, consistent with diminishing sensitivity, and the obtained loss-aversion coefficient of 1.6 is moderate but in agreement with contemporary evidence. The estimated probability weighting functions have an inverse-S shape and they imply pessimism in both domains. These results show that probability weighting is also an important phenomenon in the general population. Women and lower educated individuals are found to be more risk averse, in agreement with common findings. In contrast to previous studies that ascribed gender differences in risk attitudes solely to differences in the degree utility curvature, however, our results show that this finding is primarily driven by loss aversion and, for women, also by a more pessimistic psychological response toward the probability of obtaining the best possible outcome.
KeywordsProspect theory Utility for gains and losses Loss aversion Subjective probability weighting
- Andersen, S., Harrison, G. W., & Rutström, E. E. (2006). Dynamic choice behaviour: asset integration and natural reference points. Working paper, 06-07, Department of Economics, College of Business Administration, University of Central Florida. Available at http://www.bus.ucf.edu/wp/Working%20Papers/2006/06-07%20Harrison.pdf.
- Booij, A. S., & van de Kuilen, G. (2007). A parameter–free analysis of the utility of money for the general population under prospect theory. Working paper, Amsterdam School of Economics. Available at http://booij.economists.nl/papers.php.
- Camerer C.F. (2000) Prospect theory in the wild: evidence from the field. In: Kahneman D., Tversky A. (eds) Choices, values and frames.. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 288–300Google Scholar
- Davidson D., Suppes P., Siegel S. (1957) Decision making: an experimental approach. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
- Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., Sunde, U., Schupp, J., & Wagner, G. G. (2006). Individual risk attitudes: new evidence from a large, representative, experimentally-validated survey. CEPR Discussion Papers 5517.Google Scholar
- Gächter, S. E., Johnson, J., & Herrmann, A. (2007). Individual-level loss aversion in riskless and risky choices. Working paper, CeDEx discussion paper 2007-02, The University of Nottingham. Available at http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/economics/cedex/papers/2007-02.pdf.
- Guiso, L., & Paiella, M. (2003). Risk aversion, wealth and background risk. Bank of Italy economic working paper no. 483.Google Scholar
- Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., Rutström, E. E., & Sullivan, M. B. (2005). Eliciting risk and time preferences using field experiments: some methodological issues. Field experiments in economics (Vol. 10). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press (Research in Experimental Economics).Google Scholar
- Harrison, G. W., & Rutström, E. E. (2008). Risk aversion in the laboratory. In J. C. Cox & G. W. Harrison (Eds.), Risk aversion in experiments (Vol. 12, pp. 42–196). Bingley, UK: Emerald (Research in experimental economics).Google Scholar
- Harrison, G. W., & Rutström, E. E. (2009). Expected utility theory and prospect theory: One wedding and a decent funeral. Experimental Economics 12, forthcoming. Available at http://www.bus.ucf.edu/wp/Working%20Papers/2005/05-18%20Harrison.pdf.
- Hertwig R., Ortmann A. (2001) Experimental practices in economics: a challenge for psychologists? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24: 383–403Google Scholar
- Laury S.K., Holt C.A. (2000) Further reflections on prospect theory. Department of Economics, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GAGoogle Scholar
- Luce R.D. (2000) Utility of gains and losses: Measurement–theoretical and experimental approaches. Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Starmer C. (2000) Developments in non-expected utility theory: the hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk. Journal of Economic Literature 38: 332–382Google Scholar
- Tu, Q. (2005). Empirical analysis of time preferences and risk aversion. CentER PhD Thesis 142, Tilburg University.Google Scholar
- van de Kuilen, G., & Wakker, P. P. (2009). The midweight method to measure attitudes towards risk and ambiguity. Working paper, Econometric Institute, Erasmus University Rotterdam. http://people.few.eur.nl/wakker/pdf/wmidpoint.pdf
- Von Gaudecker, H. M., van Soest, A., & Wengström, E. (2008). Selection and mode effects in risk preference elicitation. IZA discussion paper 3321. Available at http://ftp.iza.org/dp3321.pdf.
- Wakker, P. P. (2005). Formalizing reference dependence and initial wealth in Rabin’s calibration theorem. Working paper, Econometric Institute, Erasmus University Rotterdam. Available at http://people.few.eur.nl/wakker/pdf/calibcsocty05.pdf
- 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 (Vol. 12, pp. 197–292) Greenwich, CT: JAI Press (Research in Experimental Economics).Google Scholar