An Empirical Test of Gain-Loss Separability in Prospect Theory

References

• Abdellaoui M. Parameter-free elicitation of utility and probability weighting functions. Management Sci. (2000) 46:1497–1512Link, Google Scholar
• Abdellaoui M., Bleichrodt H., Paraschiv C. Measuring loss aversion: A parameter-free approach. Management Sci. (2007) 53:1659–1674Link, Google Scholar
• Ballinger T. P., Wilcox N. T. Decisions, error and heterogeneity. Econom. J. (1997) 106:1090–1105Google Scholar
• Baltussen G., Post T., van Vliet P. Violations of cumulative prospect theory in mixed gambles with moderate probabilities. Management Sci. (2006) 52:1288–1290Link, Google Scholar
• Barberis N., Huang M., Santos T. Prospect theory and asset prices. Quart. J. Econom. (2001) 116:1–53Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baucells M., Heukamp F. H. Reevaluation of the results of Levy and Levy (2002a). Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes (2004) 94:15–21Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baucells M., Heukamp F. H. Stochastic dominance and cumulative prospect theory. Management Sci. (2006) 52:1409–23Link, Google Scholar
• Bechara A., Damasio H., Tranel D., Damasio A. R. Deciding advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy. Science (1997) 275:1293–1295Crossref, Google Scholar
• Birnbaum M. H. Causes of allais common consequence paradoxes: An experimental dissection. J. Math. Psych. (2004) 48:87–106Crossref, Google Scholar
• Birnbaum M. H., Bahra J. P. Tests of gain-loss separability, coalescing, risk/loss attitudes, and idempotence in risky decision making. Management Sci. (2007) 53:1016–1028Link, Google Scholar
• Birnbaum M. H., McIntosh W. R. Violations of branch independence in choices between gambles. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes (1996) 67:91–110Crossref, Google Scholar
• Birnbaum M. H., Navarette J. B. Testing descriptive utility theories: Violations of stochastic dominance and cumulative independence. J. Risk Uncertainty (1998) 17:49–78Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bleichrodt H., Pinto J. L. A parameter-free elicitation of the probability weighting function in medical decision analysis. Management Sci. (2000) 46:1485–1496Link, Google Scholar
• Breiter H. C., Aharon I., Kahneman D., Dale A., Shizgal P. Functional imaging of neural responses to expectancy and experience of monetary gains and losses. Neuron (2001) 30:619–639Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brenner L. Should observed overconfidence be dismissed as a statistical artifact?: Critique of Erev et al. (1994). Psych. Rev. (2000) 107:943–946Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brooks P., Zank H. Loss averse behavior. J. Risk Uncertainty (2005) 31:301–325Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burson K. A., Larrick R. P., Klayman J. Skilled or unskilled, but still unaware of it: How perceptions of difficulty drive miscalibration in relative comparisons. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (2006) 90:60–77Crossref, Google Scholar
• Camerer C. F. An experimental test of several generalized utility theories. J. Risk Uncertainty (1989) 2:61–104Crossref, Google Scholar
• Camerer C. F., Kagel J. H., Roth A. E. Individual decision making. The Handbook of Experimental Economics (1995) (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ) 587–703Google Scholar
• Camerer C., Kahneman D., Tversky A. Prospect theory in the wild. Choices, Values, and Frames (2000) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) 288–300Crossref, Google Scholar
• Camerer C. F., Ho T.-H. Violations of the betweenness axiom and nonlinearity in probability. J. Risk Uncertainty (1994) 8:167–196Crossref, Google Scholar
• Camerer C. F., Hogarth R. M. The effects of financial incentives in experiments: A review and capital-labor-production framework. J. Risk Uncertainty (1999) 19:7–42Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chechile R. A., Butler S. F. Is “generic utility theory” a suitable theory of choice behavior for gambles with mixed gains and losses? J. Risk Uncertainty (2000) 20:189–211Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chechile R. A., Butler S. F. Reassessing the testing of generic utility models for mixed gambles. J. Risk Uncertainty (2003) 26:55–76Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cho Y.-H., Truong L., Haneda M. Testing the indifference between a binary lottery and its edited components using observed estimates of variability. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes (2005) 97:82–89Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davidson D., Suppes P., Siegel S.Decision Making: An Experimental Approach (1957) (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA) Google Scholar
• Erev I., Wallsten T. S., Budescu D. V. Simultaneous over- and underconfidence: The role of error in judgment processes. Psych. Rev. (1994) 101:519–527Crossref, Google Scholar
• Etchart-Vincent N. Is probability weighting sensitive to the magnitude of consequences? An experimental investigation on losses. J. Risk Uncertainty (2004) 38:217–235Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr-Duda H., de Gennaro M., Schubert R. Gender, financial risk, and probability weights. Theory and Decision (2006) 60:283–293Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fox C. R., See K. E., Hardman D., Macchi L. Belief and preference in decision under uncertainty. Thinking: Psychological Perspectives on Reasoning, Judgment and Decision Making (2003) (Wiley, New York) 273–314Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gonzalez R., Wu G. On the shape of the probability weighting function. Cognitive Psych. (1999) 38:129–166Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hey J. D. Experimental investigations of errors in decison-making under risk. Eur. Econom. Rev. (1995) 39:633–640Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hey J. D., Orme C. Investigating generalizations of expected utility theory using experimental data. Econometrica (1994) 62:1291–1326Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hsee C. K., Rottenstreich Y. Music, pandas, and muggers: On the affective psychology of value. J. Experiment. Psych.: General (2004) 133:23–30Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hurwicz L. Optimality criteria for decision making under ignorance. (1951) . Cowles Commission Discussion Paper, Statistics No. 370Google Scholar
• Iverson G. J., Falmagne J.-C. Statistical issues in measurement. Math. Soc. Sci. (1985) 10:131–153Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jolls C., Sunstein C., Thaler R. H. A behavioral approach to law and economics. Stanford Law Rev. (1998) 50:1471–1550Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D., Tversky A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica (1979) 47:263–291Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D., Knetsch J. L., Thaler R. H. Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. J. Political Econom. (1990) 98:1325–1348Crossref, Google Scholar
• Köbberling V., Wakker P. P. An index of loss aversion. J. Econom. Theory (2005) 122:119–131Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krueger J., Mueller R. A. Unskilled, unaware, or both? The better-than-average heuristic and statistical regression predict errors in estimates of own performance. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (2002) 82:180–188Crossref, Google Scholar
• Larsen J. T., McGraw A. P., Mellers B. A., Cacioppo J. T. The agony of victory and thrill of defeat: Mixed emotional reactions to disappointing wins and relieving losses. Psych. Sci. (2004) 15:325–330Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lattimore P. K., Baker J. K., Witte A. D. The influence of probability on risky choice: A parametric examination. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. (1992) 17:377–400Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levy H., Levy M. Prospect theory: Much Ado about nothing? Management Sci. (2002a) 48:1334–1349Link, Google Scholar
• Levy H., Levy M. Experimental test of the prospect theory value function: A stochastic dominance approach. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes (2002b) 89:1058–1081Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luce R. D.Utility of Gains and Losses: Measurement-Theoretical and Experimental Approaches (2000) (Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ) Google Scholar
• Luce R. D., Suppes P., Luce R. D., Bush R. B., Galanter E. Preference, utility, and subjective probability. Handbook of Mathematical Psychology (1965) III(Wiley, New York) 249–410Google Scholar
• MacCrimmon K. R., Wehrung D. A. Characteristics of risk taking executives. Management Sci. (1990) 36:422–435Link, Google Scholar
• Machina M. J. Choice under uncertainty: Problems solved and unsolved. J. Econom. Perspectives (1987) 1:121–154Crossref, Google Scholar
• March J., Shapira Z. Managerial perspectives on risk and risk taking. Management Sci. (1987) 33:1404–1418Link, Google Scholar
• Markowitz H. The utility of wealth. J. Political Econom. (1952) 60:151–158Crossref, Google Scholar
• McFadden D., Manski C. F., McFadden D. Econometric models of probabilistic choice. Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Econometric Applications (1981) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) 198–272Google Scholar
• McNeil B. J., Pauker S. G., Sox H. C., Tversky A. On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. New England J. Medicine (1982) 306:1259–1262Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mood A. M., Graybill F. A.Introduction to the Theory of Statistics (1963) 3rd ed.(McGraw-Hill, New York) Google Scholar
• Mosteller F., Nogee P. An experimental measurement of utility. J. Political Econom. (1951) 59:371–404Crossref, Google Scholar
• Myung J. I., Karabatsos G., Iverson G. J. A Bayesian approach to testing decision making axioms. J. Math. Psych. (2005) 49:205–225Crossref, Google Scholar
• Payne J. W. It is whether you win or lose: The importance of the overall probabilities of winning or losing in risky choice. J. Risk Uncertainty (2005) 30:5–19Crossref, Google Scholar
• Payne J. W., Braunstein M. L. Preferences among gambles with equal underlying distributions. J. Experiment. Psych. (1971) 87:13–18Crossref, Google Scholar
• Payne J. W., Bettman J., Johnson E. Behavioral decision research: A constructive processing perspective. Annual Rev. Psych. (1992) 43:87–131Crossref, Google Scholar
• Payne J. W., Laughhunn D. J., Crum R. L. Translation of gambles and aspiration effects in risky choice behavior. Management Sci. (1980) 26:1039–1060Link, Google Scholar
• Payne J. W., Laughhunn D. J., Crum R. L. Further tests of aspiration level effects in risky choice. Management Sci. (1981) 27:953–958Link, Google Scholar
• Prelec D. The probability weighting function. Econometrica (1998) 66:497–527Crossref, Google Scholar
• Quattrone G. A., Tversky A. Contrasting rational and psychological analyses of political choice. Amer. Political Sci. Rev. (1988) 82:719–736Crossref, Google Scholar
• Quiggin J. A theory of anticipated utility. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. (1982) 3:323–343Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rottenstreich Y., Hsee C. K. Money, kisses, and electric shocks: On the affective psychology of risk. Psych. Sci. (2001) 12:185–190Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rottenstreich Y., Shu S., Koehler D. J., Harvey N. The connections between affect and decision making: Nine resulting phenomena. Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making (2004) (Blackwell, Oxford, UK) 444–463Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schmidt U., Traub S. An experimental test of loss aversion. J. Risk Uncertainty (2002) 25:233–249Crossref, Google Scholar
• Slovic P. The relative influence of probabilities and payoffs upon the perceived risk of a gamble. Psychonomic Sci. (1967) 9:223–224Crossref, Google Scholar
• Slovic P., Lichtenstein S. Relative importance of probabilities and payoffs in risk taking. J. Experiment. Psych. (1968) 78:1–18Crossref, Google Scholar
• Slovic P., Finucane M., Peters E., MacGregor D. G., Gilovich T., Griffin D., Kahneman D. The affect heuristic. Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Human Judgment (2002) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) 397–420Crossref, Google Scholar
• Starmer C. Developments in non-expected utility theory: The hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk. J. Econom. Literature (2000) 38:332–382Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thaler R. H., Johnson E. J. Gambling with the house money and trying to break even: The effects of prior outcomes on risky choice. Management Sci. (1990) 36:643–660Link, Google Scholar
• Tversky A. Intransitivity of preferences. Psych. Rev. (1969) 76:31–48Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A. Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psych. Rev. (1972) 79:281–299Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A., Fox C. R. Weighing risk and uncertainty. Psych. Rev. (1995) 102:269–283Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A., Kahneman D. Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertainty (1992) 5:297–323Crossref, Google Scholar
• Venkatraman V., Payne J. W., Bettman J. R., Luce M. F., Huettel S. A. Neural mechanisms underlying strategic variability in risky. decision making. (2008) . Working paper, Duke University, Durham, NCGoogle Scholar
• Wakker P. P. The data of Levy and Levy (2002). “Prospect theory: Much Ado about nothing?” Support prospect theory. Management Sci. (2003) 49:979–981Link, Google Scholar
• Wakker P. P., Tversky A. An axiomatization of cumulative prospect theory. J. Risk Uncertainty (1993) 7:147–176Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wu G. An empirical test of ordinal independence. J. Risk Uncertainty (1994) 9:39–60Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wu G., Gonzalez R. Curvature of the probability weighting function. Management Sci. (1996) 42:1676–90Link, Google Scholar
• Wu G., Zhang J., Abdellaoui M. Testing prospect theories using probability tradeoff consistency. J. Risk Uncertainty (2005) 30:107–131Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wu G., Zhang J., Gonzalez R., Koehler D. J., Harvey N. Decision under risk. Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making (2004) (Blackwell, Oxford, UK) 399–423Crossref, Google Scholar