Making Descriptive Use of Prospect Theory to Improve the Prescriptive Use of Expected Utility

By Han Bleichrodt, Jose Luis Pinto-Prades, Peter P. Wakker. Management Sciences, 2001

352 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, General Decision Sciences

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b934b005d954114f93255dc553771a2890961c59

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In General Decision Sciences

Citations in the corpus

Loss Averse Behavior (2005, background): “…lotteries are used to extract evidence for particular functional forms of the utility function (Fennema and van Assen, 1999; Barron and Erev, 2003; Bleichrodt, Pinto, and Wakker, 2001; Abdellaoui, Vossmann, and Weber, 2005; Abdellaoui, Bleichrodt and Paraschiv, 2004) or the probability weighting…”
Preference purification and the inner rational agent: a critique of the conventional wisdom of behavioural welfare economics (2016, neutral): “The use of behavioural optimisation models to purify preferences was discussed in Section 2, where it was exemplified by the work of Bleichrodt et al. (‘BPW’, 2001), Kőszegi and Rabin (2007, 2008) and Bordalo et al. (2013). We will argue that this method of defining and identifying latent preference”
Decision analysis in Management Science (2004, positive): “More recently, Bleichrodt et al. (2001MS) used descriptive models to correct biases in utility assessments.”
Reconciling introspective utility with revealed preference: Experimental arguments based on prospect theory (2007, background): “249 Several authors have suggested that utility measurement can be improved through 250 prospect theory (Bayoumi and Redelmeier 2000; Bleichrodt, Pinto, and Wakker 2001; 251 Krzysztofowicz and Koch 1989).”
Preference Anomalies, Preference Elicitation and the Discovered Preference Hypothesis (2005, background): “One example of work in this spirit is Bleichrodt et al. (2001) , who developed utility elicitation procedures that are robust to specific violations of EUT (i.e., non-linear probability weighting).”
A tractable method to measure utility and loss aversion under prospect theory (2008, background): “Evidence abounds, however, that people violate expected utility in systematic ways (Starmer 2000) and that utility measurements based on expected utility give inconsistent results (Hershey and Schoemaker 1985; Bleichrodt et al. 2001; Abdellaoui et al. 2007).”
Modeling the interplay between affect and deliberation. (2015, background): “Indeed, most researchers , as well as knowledgeable lay people, agree that expected-utility theory is the appropriate prescriptive theory to use for evaluating risks (for a discussion, see Bleichrodt et al., 2001).”
Loss Aversion Under Prospect Theory: A Parameter-Free Measurement (2007, methodology): “The table shows that the median loss aversion coefficient under the definition of Kahneman and Tversky (1979) is somewhat lower than the median values obtained by Tversky and Kahneman (1992) and by Bleichrodt et al. (2001), see Table 1.”
An index of loss aversion (2005, background): “Such factors, while ignored in this study and in[11], were investigated empirically in [35].”
Modeling uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis (2012, methodology): “The corrective procedures in [19] make fairly large adjustments to both certainty and probability equivalence methods, particularly at high probabilities and particularly for the probability equivalence method.”
Risk preferences and pesticide use by cotton farmers in China (2013, background): “In Bleichrodt et al. (2001) elicit individual preference over health outcomes and they find the coefficient of loss aversion is between 2.17-3.06, which is similar to our measures of loss aversion.”