The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Prospect Theory in the Wild: Evidence from the Field
Abstract
This book presents the definitive exposition of 'prospect theory', a compelling alternative to the classical utility theory of choice. Building on the 1982 volume, Judgement Under Uncertainty, this book brings together seminal papers on prospect theory from economists, decision theorists, and psychologists, including the work of the late Amos Tversky, whose contributions are collected here for the first time. While remaining within a rational choice framework, prospect theory delivers more accurate, empirically verified predictions in key test cases, as well as helping to explain many complex, real-world puzzles. In this volume, it is brought to bear on phenomena as diverse as the principles of legal compensation, the equity premium puzzle in financial markets, and the number of hours that New York cab drivers choose to drive on rainy days. Theoretically elegant and empirically robust, this volume shows how prospect theory has matured into a new science of decision making.
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
Status quo bias in decision making
Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1007/bf00055564 · Cited by 5,897
Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1990) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/261737 · Cited by 3,194
Modeling Loss Aversion and Reference Dependence Effects on Brand Choice
Hardie, B. G. S., Johnson, E. J., & Fader, P. S. (1993) · Marketing Science · doi:10.1287/mksc.12.4.378 · Cited by 903
Cited by
The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework
Camerer, C. F., Hogarth, R. M., Budescu, D. V., & Eckel, C. (1999) · Elicitation of Preferences · doi:10.1007/978-94-017-1406-8_2 · Cited by 1,545
Self-citationDecisions from Experience and the Effect of Rare Events in Risky Choice
Hertwig, R., Barron, G., Weber, E. U., & Erev, I. (2004) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00715.x · Cited by 1,225
Neuroeconomics: cross-currents in research on decision-making
Sanfey, A. G., Loewenstein, G., McClure, S. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2006) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.01.009 · Cited by 561
Risky business: the neuroeconomics of decision making under uncertainty
Platt, M. L., & Huettel, S. A. (2008) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn2062 · Cited by 556
How Basic Are Behavioral Biases? Evidence from Capuchin Monkey Trading Behavior
Chen, M. K., Lakshminarayanan, V., & Santos, L. R. (2006) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/503550 · Cited by 472
Metadata
- Authors
- Camerer, C. F.
- Venue
- Choices, Values, and Frames
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 2000-09-25
- Pages
- 288-300
- OpenAlex
- W1859836455
- Cited by
- 532
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 3.60
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Prospect Theory in the Wild: Evidence from the Field. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/cbo9780511803475.017
- The paper
- Camerer, C. F. (2000). Prospect Theory in the Wild: Evidence from the Field. Choices, Values, and Frames. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511803475.017
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.