The Midweight Method to Measure Attitudes Toward Risk and Ambiguity

References

• Abdellaoui M. Parameter-free elicitation of utility and probability weighting functions. Management Sci. (2000) 46:1497–1512Link, Google Scholar
• Abdellaoui M. A genuine rank-dependent generalization of the von Neumann-Morgenstern expected utility theorem. Econometrica (2002) 70:717–736Crossref, Google Scholar
• Abdellaoui M., Munier B. R., Machina M. J., Munier B. R. How consistent are probability tradeoffs in individual preferences under risk? Beliefs, Interactions and Preferences in Decision-Making (1999) (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands) 285–295Crossref, Google Scholar
• Abdellaoui M., Wakker P. P. The likelihood method for decision under uncertainty. Theory Decision (2005) 58:3–76Crossref, Google Scholar
• Abdellaoui M., Vossmann F., Weber M. Choice-based elicitation and decomposition of decision weights for gains and losses under uncertainty. Management Sci. (2005) 51:1384–1399Link, Google Scholar
• Abdellaoui M., Bleichrodt H., Paraschiv C. Loss aversion under prospect theory: A parameter-free measurement. Management Sci. (2007) 53:1659–1674Link, Google Scholar
• Abdellaoui M., Baillon A., Placido L., Wakker P. P. The rich domain of uncertainty: Source functions and their experimental implementation. Amer. Econom. Rev. (2011) . ForthcomingCrossref, Google Scholar
• Ahn D. S., Choi S., Gale D., Kariv S. Estimating ambiguity aversion in a portfolio choice experiment. (2009) . Working paper, Department of Economics, University of California, Los Angeles, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
• Allais M. Le comportement de l'homme rationnel devant le risque: Critique des postulats et axiomes de l'ecole Américaine. Econometrica (1953) 21:503–546Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andersen S., Harrison G. W., Fountain J., Rutström E. E. Elicitating beliefs: Theory and experiments. (2007) . Working paper, Department of Economics, University of Central Florida, OrlandoGoogle Scholar
• Armantier O. Do wealth differences affect fairness considerations. Internat. Econom. Rev. (2006) 47:391–429Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baltussen G., Post T., van den Assem M. J., Wakker P. P. Random incentive systems in a dynamic choice experiment. (2010) . Working paper, Department of Economics, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
• Bardsley N., Moffat P. G. A meta-analysis of the preference reversal phenomenon. (2009) . In preparation, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UKGoogle Scholar
• Barron G., Erev I. Small feedback-based decisions and their limited correspondence to description-based decisions. J. Behav. Decision Making (2003) 16:215–233Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bearden J. N., Wallsten T. S., Fox C. R. Contrasting stochastic and support theory accounts of subadditivity. J. Math. Psych. (2007) 51:229–241Crossref, Google Scholar
• Birnbaum M. H. Evaluation of the priority heuristic as a descriptive model of risky decision making: Comment on Brandstätter, Gigerenzer, and Hertwig (2006). Psych. Rev. (2008) 115:253–260Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blavatskyy P. R. Error propagation in the elicitation of utility and probability weighting functions. Theory Decision (2006) 60:315–334Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blavatskyy P., Pogrebna G. Models of stochastic choice and decision theory: Why both are important for analyzing decisions. J. Appl. Econometrics (2011) . ForthcomingGoogle Scholar
• Bleichrodt H. Probability weighting in choice under risk: An empirical test. J. Risk Uncertainty (2001) 23:185–198Crossref, 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
• Bleichrodt H., Cillo A., Diecidue E. A quantitative measurement of regret theory. Management Sci. (2010) 56:161–175Link, Google Scholar
• Bostic R., Herrnstein R. J., Luce R. D. The effect on the preference-reversal phenomenon of using choice indifferences. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. (1990) 13:193–212Crossref, Google Scholar
• Curley S. P., Yates J. F. An empirical evaluation of descriptive models of ambiguity reactions in choice situations. J. Math. Psych. (1989) 33:397–427Crossref, Google Scholar
• Diecidue E., Wakker P. P., Zeelenberg M. Eliciting decision weights by adapting de Finetti's betting-odds method to prospect theory. J. Risk Uncertainty (2007) 34:179–199Crossref, Google Scholar
• Donkers A. C. D., Melenberg B., van Soest A. H. O. Estimating risk attitudes using lotteries: A large sample approach. J. Risk Uncertainty (2001) 22:165–195Crossref, Google Scholar
• Einhorn H. J., Hogarth R. M. Ambiguity and uncertainty in probabilistic inference. Psych. Rev. (1985) 92:433–461Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ellsberg D. Risk, ambiguity and the Savage axioms. Quart. J. Econom. (1961) 75:643–669Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ellsberg D.Risk, Ambiguity and Decision (2001) (Garland Publishers, New York) . Original Ph.D. dissertation: Ellsberg, D. 1962. Risk, ambiguity and decision. Harvard University, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
• Epstein L. G., Zhang J. Subjective probabilities on subjectively unambiguous events. Econometrica (2001) 69:265–306Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fatas E., Neugebauer T., Tamborero P. How politicians make decisions: A political choice experiment. J. Econom. (2007) 92:167–196Google Scholar
• Fishburn P. C., Edwards W. Discount-neutral utility models for denumerable time streams. Theory Decision (1997) 43:139–166Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fox C. R., Tversky A. A belief-based account of decision under uncertainty. Management Sci. (1998) 44:879–895Link, Google Scholar
• Fox C. R., Rogers B. A., Tversky A. Options traders exhibit subadditive decision weights. J. Risk Uncertainty (1996) 13:5–17Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ghirardato P., Maccheroni F., Marinacci M., Siniscalchi M. A subjective spin on roulette wheels. Econometrica (2003) 71:1897–1908Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gilboa I. Expected utility with purely subjective non-additive probabilities. J. Math. Econom. (1987) 16:65–88Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gilboa I., Schmeidler D. Maxmin expected utility with a non-unique prior. J. Math. Econom. (1989) 18:141–153Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goeree J. K., Holt C. A., Palfrey T. R. Quantal response equilibrium and overbidding in private-value auctions. J. Econom. Theory (2002) 104:247–272Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goeree J. K., Holt C. A., Palfrey T. R. Risk averse behavior in generalized matching pennies games. Games Econom. Behav. (2003) 45:97–113Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gonzalez R., Wu G. On the shape of the probability weighting function. Cognitive Psych. (1999) 38:129–166Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grabisch M., Kojadinovic I., Meyer P. A review of methods for capacity identification in Choquet integral based multi-attribute utility theory: Applications of the Kappalab R package. Eur. J. Oper. Res. (2008) 186:766–785Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greenspan A. Innovations and issues in monetary policy: The last fifteen years. Amer. Econom. Rev., Papers Proc. (2004) 94:33–40Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harless D. W., Camerer C. F. The predictive utility of generalized expected utility theories. Econometrica (1994) 62:1251–1289Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrison G. W. An experimental test for risk aversion. Econom. Lett. (1986) 21:7–11Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrison G. W., List J. A. Hypothetical bias over uncertain outcomes. Using Experimental Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics (2006) (Elgar, Northampton, UK) 41–69Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrison G. W., Lau M. I., Rutström E. E. Estimating risk attitudes in Denmark: A field experiment. Scandinavian J. Econom. (2007) 109:341–368Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hartinger A. Do generalized expected utility theories capture persisting properties of individual decision makers? Acta Psych. (1999) 102:21–42Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harvey C. M. Value functions for infinite-period planning. Management Sci. (1986) 32:1123–1139Link, Google Scholar
• Henrich J., Mcelreat R. Are peasants risk-averse decision makers? Current Anthropology (2002) 43:172–181Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hey J. D., Orme C. Investigating generalizations of expected utility theory using experimental data. Econometrica (1994) 62:1291–1326Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hey J. D., Lotito G., Maffioletti A. The descriptive and predictive adequacy of theories of decision making under uncertainty/ambiguity. J. Risk Uncertainty (2010) 41:81–111Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hogarth R. M., Einhorn H. J. Venture theory: A model of decision weights. Management Sci. (1990) 36:780–803Link, Google Scholar
• Humphrey S. J., Verschoor A. The probability weighting function: Experimental evidence from Uganda, India and Ethiopia. Econom. Lett. (2004) 84:419–425Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jullien B., Salanié B. Estimating preferences under risk: The case of racetrack bettors. J. Political Econom. (2000) 108:503–530Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahn B. E., Sarin R. K. Modeling ambiguity in decisions under uncertainty. J. Consumer Res. (1988) 15:265–272Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D., Tversky A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica (1979) 47:263–291Crossref, Google Scholar
• Keynes J. M.A Treatise on Probability (1921) (McMillan, London) Google Scholar
• Kilka M., Weber M. What determines the shape of the probability weighting function under uncertainty? Management Sci. (2001) 47:1712–1726Link, Google Scholar
• Knight F. H.Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit (1921) (Houghton Mifflin, New York) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Köbberling V., Wakker P. P. Preference foundations for nonexpected utility: A generalized and simplified technique. Math. Oper. Res. (2003) 28:395–423Link, Google Scholar
• Kühberger A., Schulte-Mecklenbeck M., Perner J. The effects of framing, reflection, probability, and payoff on risk preference in choice tasks. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes (1999) 78:204–231Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kunreuther H. C., Pauly M. Neglecting disaster: Why don't people insure against large losses? J. Risk Uncertainty (2003) 28:5–21Crossref, Google Scholar
• Li L.-B., He S.-H., Li S., Xu J.-H., Rao L.-L. A closer look at the Russian roulette problem: A re-examination of the nonlinearity of the prospect theory's decision weight π. Internat. J. Approximate Reasoning (2009) 50:515–520Crossref, Google Scholar
• Loomes G. Evidence of a new violation of the independence axiom. J. Risk Uncertainty (1991) 4:92–109Crossref, Google Scholar
• Loomes G., Moffat P. G., Sugden R. A microeconometric test of alternative stochastic theories of risky choice. J. Risk Uncertainty (2002) 24:103–130Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luce R. D. When four distinct ways to measure utility are the same. J. Math. Psych. (1996) 40:297–317Crossref, Google Scholar
• MacCrimmon K. R., Larsson S., Allais M., Hagen O. Utility theory: Axioms versus “paradoxes”. Expected Utility Hypotheses and the Allais Paradox (1979) (Reidel, Dordrecht, The Netherlands) 333–409Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mangelsdorff L., Weber M. Testing Choquet expected utility. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. (1994) 25:437–457Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mosteller F., Nogee P. An experimental measurement of utility. J. Political Econom. (1951) 59:371–404Crossref, Google Scholar
• Noussair C., Robbin S., Ruffieux B. Revealing consumers' willingness-to-pay: A comparison of the BDM mechanism and the Vickrey auction. J. Econom. Psych. (2004) 25:725–741Crossref, Google Scholar
• Prelec D. The probability weighting function. Econometrica (1998) 66:497–527Crossref, Google Scholar
• Qiu J., Steiger E.-M. Understanding the two components of risk attitudes: An experimental analysis. Management Sci. (2011) 57:193–199Link, Google Scholar
• Quiggin J. Risk perception and risk aversion among Australian farmers. Australian J. Agricultural Econom. (1981) 25:160–169Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rabin M. Risk aversion and expected-utility theory: A calibration theorem. Econometrica (2000) 68:1281–1292Crossref, Google Scholar
• Savage L. J.The Foundations of Statistics (1954) (Wiley, New York) Google Scholar
• Schmeidler D. Subjective probability and expected utility without additivity. Econometrica (1989) 57:571–587Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stott H. P. Cumulative prospect theory's functional menagerie. J. Risk Uncertainty (2006) 32:101–130Crossref, 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
• Vind K. Independent preferences. J. Math. Econom. (1991) 20:119–135Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vind K.Independence, Additivity, Uncertainty (2003) (Springer, Berlin) . With contributions by B. GrodalCrossref, Google Scholar
• Wakker P. P., Blume L., Durlauf S. N. Uncertainty. The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics (2008) (MacMillan Press, London) 6780–6791Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wakker P. P.Prospect Theory for Risk and Ambiguity (2010) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wakker P. P., Deneffe D. Eliciting von Neumann-Morgenstern utilities when probabilities are distorted or unknown. Management Sci. (1996) 42:1131–1150Link, Google Scholar
• Weber E. U. From subjective probabilities to decision weights: The effects of asymmetric loss functions on the evaluation of uncertain outcomes and events. Psych. Bull. (1994) 115:228–242Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wu G., Gonzalez R. Nonlinear decision weights in choice under uncertainty. Management Sci. (1999) 45:74–85Link, Google Scholar
• Wu G., Zhang J., Abdellaoui M. Testing prospect theories using probability tradeoff consistency. J. Risk Uncertainty (2005) 30:107–131Crossref, Google Scholar