Resolving Inconsistencies in Utility Measurement Under Risk: Tests of Generalizations of Expected Utility

Han Bleichrodt, Jose-Maria Abellan-Perpiñan (), Jose-Luis Pinto-Prades and Ildefonso Mendez

Management Science, 2007, vol. 53, issue 3, 469-482

Abstract: This paper explores inconsistencies that occur in utility measurement under risk when expected utility theory is assumed and the contribution that prospect theory and some other generalizations of expected utility can make to the resolution of these inconsistencies. We used five methods to measure utilities under risk and found clear violations of expected utility. Of the theories studied, prospect theory was the most consistent with our data. The main improvement of prospect theory over expected utility was in comparisons between a riskless and a risky prospect (riskless-risk methods). We observed no improvement over expected utility in comparisons between two risky prospects (risk-risk methods). An explanation for the latter observation may be that there was less distortion in probability weighting in the interval [0.10, 0.20] than has commonly been observed.

Keywords: utility measurement; nonexpected utility; prospect theory; health (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2007
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (38)

Downloads: (external link)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0647 (application/pdf)

Related works:
Working Paper: Resolving Inconsistencies in Utility Measurement under Risk: Tests of Generalizations of Expected Utility (2006)
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:inm:ormnsc:v:53:y:2007:i:3:p:469-482

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Management Science from INFORMS Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Asher ().