A parameter-free analysis of the utility of money for the general population under prospect theory

Adam S. Booij and Gijs Kuilen

Journal of Economic Psychology, 2009, vol. 30, issue 4, 651-666

Abstract: Extensive data has convincingly demonstrated that expected utility, the reigning economic theory of rational decision making, fails descriptively. This descriptive failure casts doubt on the validity of classical utility measurements. Prospect theory can better explain choice behaviour because it makes the plausible assumption that risk attitudes are not only driven by sensitivity towards outcomes (utility curvature), but also by sensitivity towards probabilities (probability weighting), and by sensitivity towards whether outcomes are above or below a reference point (loss aversion). This paper presents an experiment that completely measures the utility- and loss aversion component of risk attitudes, using a representative sample of NÂ =Â 1935 respondents from the general public, in a parameter-free way. This study thereby provides the first measurement of the utility of money for the general population that is valid under (cumulative) prospect theory, does not depend on prior assumptions about the underlying functional form of utility, is externally valid, and does not rule out heterogeneity of individual preferences. The results confirm the concave-convex pattern of utility as predicted by prospect theory, suggest that utility curvature is less pronounced than suggested by classical utility measurements, and show that women are significantly more loss averse than men.

Keywords: Prospect; theory; Utility; measurement; Loss; aversion; Gender; differences (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2009
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (116)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167-4870(09)00055-5
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:joepsy:v:30:y:2009:i:4:p:651-666

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Economic Psychology is currently edited by G. Antonides and D. Read

More articles in Journal of Economic Psychology from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().