The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Expected utility theory and prospect theory: one wedding and a decent funeral
Open accessAbstract
Choice behavior is typically evaluated by assuming that the data is generated by one latent decision-making process or another. What if there are two (or more) latent decision-making processes generating the observed choices? Some choices might then be better characterized as being generated by one process, and other choices by the other process. A finite mixture model can be used to estimate the parameters of each decision process while simultaneously estimating the probability that each process applies to the sample. We consider the canonical case of lottery choices in a laboratory experiment and assume that the data is generated by expected utility theory and prospect theory decision rules. We jointly estimate the parameters of each theory as well as the fraction of choices characterized by each. The methodology provides the wedding invitation, and the data consummates the ceremony followed by a decent funeral for the representative agent model that assumes only one type of decision process. The evidence suggests support for each theory, and goes further to identify under what demographic domains one can expect to see one theory perform better than the other. We therefore propose a reconciliation of the debate over two of the dominant theories of choice under risk, at least for the tasks and samples we consider. The methodology is broadly applicable to a range of debates over competing theories generated by experimental and non-experimental data.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524
(1990) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.27-3338 · Cited by 35,305
Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2000) · doi:10.1002/0471722146 · Cited by 20,302
Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1007/bf00122574 · Cited by 15,467
McLachlan, G., & Peel, D. (2000) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/0471721182 · Cited by 10,991
Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation
Train, K. E. (2001) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511805271 · Cited by 7,784
Kumbhakar, S. C., & Lovell, C. A. K. (2000) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139174411 · Cited by 4,358
A Note on Robust Variance Estimation for Cluster‐Correlated Data
Williams, R. L. (2000) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00645.x · Cited by 2,501 · cited 1×
“For example, Williams (2000; p. 645) notes that it could arise from dental studies that “collect data on each tooth surface for each of several teeth from a set of patients” or “repeated measurements or recurrent events observed on the same person.” The procedures for allowing for clustering allow heteroskedasticity b…”
BackgroundWhom or What Does the Representative Individual Represent?
Kirman, A. P. (1992) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.6.2.117 · Cited by 1,595
Does Market Experience Eliminate Market Anomalies?
List, J. A. (2003) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/00335530360535144 · Cited by 1,183
Cited by
Eliciting Risk and Time Preferences
Andersen, S., Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutström, E. E. (2008) · Econometrica · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0262.2008.00848.x · Cited by 984
Self-citationA Dual-Self Model of Impulse Control
Fudenberg, D., & Levine, D. K. (2006) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.96.5.1449 · Cited by 927
Liu, E. M. (2013) · The Review of Economics and Statistics · doi:10.1162/rest_a_00295 · Cited by 584
Can quantum probability provide a new direction for cognitive modeling?
Pothos, E. M., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2013) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x12001525 · Cited by 440
Risk and Rationality: Uncovering Heterogeneity in Probability Distortion
(2010) · Econometrica · doi:10.3982/ecta7139 · Cited by 384
Metadata
- Authors
- Harrison, G. W., & Rutström, E. E.
- Venue
- Experimental Economics
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2009-06
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 133-158
- ISSN
- 1386-4157 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-6938
- OpenAlex
- W2001833896
- Cited by
- 424
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 13.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Expected utility theory and prospect theory: one wedding and a decent funeral. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s10683-008-9203-7
- The paper
- Harrison, G. W., & Rutström, E. E. (2009). Expected utility theory and prospect theory: one wedding and a decent funeral. Experimental Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-008-9203-7
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.