Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cumulative prospect theory's functional menagerie

  • Published:
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many different functional forms have been suggested for both the value function and probability weighting function of Cumulative Prospect Theory (Tversky and Kahneman, 1992). There are also many stochastic choice functions available. Since these three components only make predictions when considered in combination, this paper examines the complete pattern of 256 model variants that can be constructed from twenty functions. All these variants are fit to experimental data and their explanatory power assessed. Significant interaction effects are observed. The best model has a power value function, a risky weighting function due to Prelec (1998), and a Logit function.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abdellaoui, Mohammed. (2000). “Parameter Free Elicitation of Utilities and Probability Weighting Functions,” Management Science 46, 1497–1512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abdellaoui, Mohammed, Frank Vossmann and Martin Weber. (2003). “Choice-Based Elicitation and Decomposition of Decision Weights for Gains and Losses Under Uncertainty,” Manuscript obtained from authors.

  • Akaike, Hirotugu (1973). “Information Theory and an Extension of the Maximum Likelihood Principle,” in: B. N. Petrox and F. Caski (Eds.), Second International Symposium on Information Theory. Budapest, Hungary: Akademiai Kiado pp. 267–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allais, Maurice (1953). “Le Comportement de l'homme Rationel Devant le Risque, Critique des Postulates et Axiomes de l'ecole Americaine,” Econometrica 21, 503–546. [In French].

    Google Scholar 

  • Ballinger, T. Parker and Nathaniel T. Wilcox (1997). “Decisions, Error and Heterogeneity,” Economic Journal 107, 1090–1105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barberis, Nicholas and Ming Huang. (2005). “Stocks as Lotteries: The Implications of Probability Weighting for Securities Prices,” Manuscript Obtained from Authors.

  • Becker, Gordon M, Maurice H. De Groot and Jacob Marschak. (1963a). “An Experimental Study of Some Stochastic Models for Wagers,” Behavioural Science 3, 199–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, Gordon M., Maurice H. De Groot and Jacob Marschak (1963b). Stochastic Models of Choice Behaviour. Behavioural Science 8, 41–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, David E. (1995a). “Risk, Return and Utility,” Management Science 41(1), 23–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, David E. (1995b). “A Contextual Uncertainty Condition for Behavior Under Risk,” Management Science 41(7), 1145–1150

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, David E. and Peter C. Fishburn. (2000). “Utility Functions for Wealth, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 20, 5–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, David E. and Peter C. Fishburn (2001). “Strong One-Switch Utility,” Management Science 47(4), 601–604

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birnbaum, Michael H. and Alfredo Chavez. (1997). “Tests of Theories of Decision Making: Violations of Branch Independence and Distribution Independence,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 71, 161–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birnbaum, Michael H, Jamie N. Patton and Melissa K. Lott. (1999). “Evidence Against Rank Dependent Utility Theories: Tests of Cumulative Independence, Interval Dependence, Stochastic Dominance and Transitivity,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 77, 44–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bleichrodt, Hans and Jose, Luis Pinto. (2000). “A Parameter-Free Elicitation of the Probability Weighting Function in Medical Decision Analysis,” Management Science 46(11), 1485–1496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blondel, Serge. (2002). “Testing Theories of Choice Under Risk: Estimation of Individual Functionals,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 24(3), 251–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandstätter, Eduard, Anton Kühberger and Friedrich Schneider. (2002). “A Cognitive-Emotional Account of the Shape of the Probability Weighting Function,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 15 , 79–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnham, Kenneth P. and David R. Anderson. (2002). Model Selection and Multimodel Inference. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buschena, David and David Zilberman (2000). “Generalized Expected Utility, Heteroscedastic Error, and Path Dependence in Risky Choice,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 20, 67–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, Colin F. (1989). “An Experimental Test of Several Generalized Utility Theories,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2, 61–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, Colin F. and Robin M. Hogarth (1999). “The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 19, 7–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, Colin F. and Teck-Hua Ho. (1994). “Violations of the Betweeness Axiom and Nonlineraity in Probability,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 8, 167–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carbone, Enrica. (1997). “Investigation of Stochastic Preference Theory Using Experimental Data,” Economic Letters 57(3), 305–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carbone, Enrica and John D. Hey. (1994). “Discriminating Between Preference Functionals: A Preliminary Monte Carlo Study,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 8, 223–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carbone, Enrica and John D. Hey. (1995). “A Comparison of the Estimates of EU and Non-EU Preference Functionals Using Data from Pairwise Choice and Complete Ranking Experiments,” Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance Theory 20, 111–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carbone, Enrica and John D. Hey. (2000). “Which Error Story is Best,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 20, 161–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chechile, Richard A. and Alan D. J. Cooke. (1997). “An Experimental Test of a General Class of Utility Models: Evidence for Context Dependency,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 14, 75–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Debreu, Gerard. (1958). “Stochastic Choice and Cardinal Utility,” Econometrica 26(3), 440–444

    Google Scholar 

  • Doctor, Jason, N. et al. (2004). “A New and More Robust Test of QALYs,” Journal of Health Economics 23, 353–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fennema, Hein and Marcel van Assen. (1998). “Measuring the Utility of Losses by Means of the Trade-Off Method,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 17, 277–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fennema, Hein and Peter, Wakker. (1997). “Original and Cumulative Prospect Theory: A Discussion of Empirical Differences,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 10, 53–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, Peter C. and Gary A. Kochenberger. (1979). “Two Piece Von Neumann-Morgernstern Utility Functions,” Decision Sciences 10(4), 503–518

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, William M. and Hillel J. Einhorn. (1987). “Expression Theory and the Preference Reversal Phenomena,” Psychological Review 94, 236–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez, Richard and George Wu. (1999). “On the Shape of Probability Weighting Function,” Cognitive Psychology 38, 129–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, Chris. (2003). “Prospect Theory, Risk Preference, and the Law,” Northwestern University Law Review 97(3), 1115–1163

    Google Scholar 

  • Grünwald, Peter. (2000). “Model Selection Based on Minimum Description Length.” Journal of Mathematical Psychology 44, 133–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harless, David W. and Colin F. Camerer. (1994). “The Predictive Utility of Generalized Expected Utility Theories,” Econometrica 62(6), 1251–1290

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrnstein, Richard J. (1997). The Matching Law: Papers in Psychology and Economics. H. Rachlin and D. I. Laibson (Eds.). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hertwig, Raph and Andreas Ortmann. (2001). “Experimental Practices in Economics: A Methodological Challenge to Psychologists?,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24, 383–451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hey, John D. (1995). “Experimental Investigations of Errors in Decision Making Under Risk,” European Economic Review 39, 633–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hey, John D. and Chris Orme. (1994). “Investigating Generalizations of the Expected Utility Theory Using Experimental Data,” Econometrica 62(6), 1291–1326

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoeting, Jennifer A. et al. (1999). “Bayesian Model Averaging: A Tutorial,” Statistical Science 14, 382–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingersoll Jonathan E, Jr. (1987). Theory of Financial Decision Making. Savage, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isaac, R. Mark and Duncan James. (2000). “Just Who Are You Calling Risk Averse?,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 20(2), 177–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kachelmeier, Steven J. and Mohamed Shehata. (1992). “Examining Risk Preferences Under High Monetary Incentives: Experimental Evidence from the People's Republic of China,” American Economic Review 82(5), 1120–1141

    Google Scholar 

  • Karmarkar, Uday. (1978). “Subjectively Weighted Utility: A Descriptive Extension of the Expected Utility Model,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 21, 61–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karmarkar, Uday. (1979). “Subjectively Weighted Utility and Allais Paradox,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 24, 67–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lattimore, Pamela K, Joanna R. Baker and Ann D. Witte. (1992). “The Influence of Probability on Risky Choice,” Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization 17, 377–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, Sarah and Paul Slovic. (1971). “Reversals of Preferences Between Bids and Choices in Gambling Decisions,” Journal of Experimental Psychology 89, 46–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loomes, Graham and Robert Sugden. (1995). “Incorporating a Stochastic Element into Decision Theories,” European Economic Review 39, 641–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loomes, Graham and Robert Sugden. (1998). “Testing Different Stochastic Specifications of Risky Choice,” Economica 65, 581–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loomes, Graham, Peter Moffat and Robert Sugden. (2002). “A Microeconometric Test of Alternative Stochastic Theories of Risk Choice,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 24, 103–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. Duncan. (1959). Individual Choice Behavior. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. Duncan. (1991). “Rank and Sign Dependent Linear Utility Models for Binary Gambles,” Journal of Economic Theory 53, 75–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. Duncan. (2000). Utility of Gains and Losses: Measurement-Theoretical and Experimental Approaches. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. Duncan (2001). “Reduction Invariance and Prelec's Weighting Functions,” Journal of Mathematical Psychology 45(1), 167–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. Duncan and Peter C. Fishburn. (1991). “Rank and Sign Dependent Linear Utility Models of Finite First-Order Gambles,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 4, 29–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. Duncan and Peter C. Fishburn. (1995). “A Note on Deriving Rank-Dependent Utility Using Additive Joint Receipts,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 11, 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. Duncan, Barbara, A. Mellers and Shi-jie, Chang. (1993). “Is Choice the Correct Primitive? On Using Certainty Equivalents and Reference Levels to Predict Choices Amoung Gambles,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 6, 115–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mellers, Barbara A. et al. (1992). “Preferences, Prices, and Ratings in Risky Decision Making,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 18, 347–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mosteller, Frederick and Philip Nogee. (1951). “An Experimental Measurement of Utility,” Journal of Political Economy 59, 371–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myung, In Jae (2000). “Importance of Complexity in Model Selection.” Journal of Mathematical Psychology 44(1), 190–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myung, In Jae and Mark A. Pitt (1997). “Applying Occam's Razor in Modeling Cognition: A Bayesian Approach,” Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 4(1), 79–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Myung, In Jae, Cheongtag Kim, and Mark A. Pitt (2000). “Towards an Explanation of the Power Law Artifact: Insights From Response Surface Analysis,” Memory and Cognition 28(5), 832–840

    Google Scholar 

  • Prelec, Drazen. (1998). “The Probability Weighting Function,” Econometrica 66(3), 497–528

    Google Scholar 

  • Quiggin, John (1982). “A Theory of Anticipated Utility.” Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization 3, 323–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rich, Elaine and Kevin Knight. (1991). Artificial Intelligence. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Segal, Uzi. (1989). “Anticipated Utility: A Measure Representation Approach,” Annals of Operations Research 19, 359–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, Paul. (1972). “Psychological Study of Human Judgement: Implications for Investment Decision Making,” Journal of Finance 27, 779–799.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Vernon L. and James M. Walker. (1993). “Monetary Rewards and Decision Cost in Experimental Economics,” Economic Inquiry 31(2), 245–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sneddon, Robert and R. Duncan Luce. (2001). “Empirical Comparisons of Bilinear and Nonbilinear Utility Theories,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 84(1), 71–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starmer, Chris. (2000). “Development in Non-Expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice Under Risk,” Journal of Economic Literature 38, 332–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starmer, Chris and Robert Sugden. (1989a). “Violations of the Independence Axiom in Common Ratio Problems: An Experimental Test,” Annals of Operations Research 19, 79–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starmer, Chris and Robert Sugden. (1989b). “Probability and Juxtaposition Effects: An Experimental Investigation of the Common Ratio Effect,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2, 159–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, S. Smitty. (1957). “On the Psychophysical Law,” Psychological Review 64, 153–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, Neil et al. (2002). “Prospect Relativity: How Choice Options Influence Decision Under Risk,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 132(1), 23–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, Amos and Craig R. Fox (1995). “Weighing Risk and Uncertainty.” Psychological Review 102(2), 269–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, Amos and Daniel Kahneman. (1992). “Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5, 297–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Neumann John and Oskar Morgenstern. (1944). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wakker, Peter and Amos Tversky. (1993). “An Axiomatization of Cumulative Prospect Theory,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 7, 147–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wakker, Peter, Ido Erev and Elke Weber. (1994). “Comonotonic Independence: The Critical Test Between Classical and Rank-Dependent Utility Theories,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 9, 195–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, Elke U. and Britt Kirsner. (1997). “Reasons for Rank-Dependent Utility Evaluation,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 14, 41–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, George and Richard Gonzalez. (1996). “Curvature of the Probability Weighting Function,” Management Science 42(12), 1676–1690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yaari, Menahem E. (1987). “The Dual Theory of Choice Under Risk,” Econometrica 55(1), 95–115

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, England

    Henry P. Stott

Authors
  1. Henry P. Stott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Henry P. Stott.

Additional information

JEL Classification C52 · D81

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stott, H.P. Cumulative prospect theory's functional menagerie. J Risk Uncertainty 32, 101–130 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-006-8289-6

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-006-8289-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation