Abstract
The method introduced here allows us to use a data set with a non-restricted number of outcomes, here 21. Hence, our method complements the other ones developed in the domain of the probability triangle. Individual parameters are estimated for expected utility and various non-expected utility theories. We use CRRA and CARA utility functions, both without and with the assumption of weakly concavity. Rank-dependent utility, prospective reference and cognitive consistency theories emerge from the others.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abdellaoui M. (2000). “Parameter-Free Elicitation of Utility and ProbabilityWeighting Functions,” Management Science 46, 1497-1512.
Battalio R., J. Kagel, and K. Jiranyakul. (1990). “Testing between Alternative Models of Choice under Uncertainty: Some Initial Results,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 3, 25-50.
Bissey M.-E. (1997). “Semi-Parametric Estimation of Preference Functionals,”Working paper, University ofYork.
Buschena D. and D. Zilberman. (2000). “Generalized Expected Utility, Heteroscedastic Error, and Path Dependence in Risky Choice,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 20, 67-88.
Camerer C. (1995). “Individual Decision Making.” In J. Kagel and Roth A. (eds.), The Handbook of Experimental Economics. Princeton University Press.
Carbone E. and J.D. Hey. (2000). “Which Error Story is Best?” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 20, 161-176.
Chew S.H. (1983). “A Generalization of the Quasilinear Mean With Applications to the Measurement of Income Inequality and Decision Theory Resolving the Allais Paradox,” Econometrica 51, 1065-1092.
Fennema H. and P. Wakker. (1997). “Original and Cumulative Prospect Theory: A Discussion of Empirical Differences,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 10, 53-64.
Greene W.H. (2000). Econometric Analysis. 4th edn., Englewood cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall International.
Gul F. (1991). “A Theory of Disappointment Aversion,” Econometrica 59, 667-686.
Harless D. and C. Camerer. (1994). “The Predictive Utility of Generalized Expected Utility Theories,” Econometrica 62, 1251-1289.
Ho. “Investigating Generalizations of Expected Utility Theory Using Experimental Data,” Econometrica 62, 1291-1326.
Kahneman D. and A. Tversky. (1979). “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,” Econometrica 47, 263-291.
Lévy-Garboua, L. (1999). “Expected Utility and Cognitive Consistency,” Working paper, Université Paris 1. See http://panoramix.univ-paris1.fr/MSE/CahiersMSE
Quiggin J. (1982). “ATheory of Anticipated Utility,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 3, 323-343.
Starmer C. (2000). “Developments in Non-Expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk,” Journal of Economic Litterature 38, 32-382.
Tversky A. and D. Kahneman. (1992). “Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5, 297-323.
Viscusi K. (1989). “Prospective Reference Theory: Towards an Explanation of the Paradoxes,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2, 235-264.
Wakker P., I. Erev, and E. Weber. (1994). “Comonotonic Independence: The Critical Test between Classical and Rank-Dependent Utility Theories,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 9, 195-230. See http://www.fee.uva. nl/creed/wakker/data/data948.htm
Weber E. and B. Kirsner. (1996). “Reasons for Rank-Dependent Utility Evaluation,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 14, 41-61.
Yaari M.E. (1987). “The Dual Theory of Choice under Uncertainty,” Econometrica 55, 95-115.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
An erratum to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1020661025652
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Blondel, S. Testing Theories of Choice Under Risk: Estimation of Individual Functionals. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 24, 251–265 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015687502895
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015687502895