Showing 1 - 10 of 10
Can any prominent theory of decision under risk rationalize both small-stakes risk aversion and large-stakes risk aversion? Do some prominent theories fail to rationalize patterns of same-stakes risk aversion? How do reference payoffs enter in the answer to these questions? What would be the...
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10010698239
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10010193248
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10003672564
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10003339984
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10003729009
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10003729014
This series presents research utilizing laboratory experimental methods in economics. A distinction between this book series and traditional journals is that the book series format allows for papers and features that might not be appropriate for journals. Some examples which have been included...
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10011905432
A growing literature reports the conclusions that: (a) expected utility theory does not provide a plausible theory of risk aversion for both small-stakes and large-stakes gambles; and (b) this decision theory should be replaced with an alternative theory characterized by loss aversion. This...
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10014058909
Much of the literature on theories of decision making under risk has emphasized differences between theories. One enduring theme has been the attempt to develop a distinction between “normative” and “descriptive” theories of choice. Bernoulli (1738) introduced log utility because...
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10015383789
The St. Petersburg paradox is one of the oldest challenges of expected value theory. Thus far, explanations of the paradox aim at small probabilities being perceived as zero and the boundedness of utility of the outcome. This paper provides experimental results showing that neither diminishing...
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10012029167