The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Choices, values, and frames.
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
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Loss aversion has been well documented in the laboratory and in many field settings (2), including high-stakes game show decisions (3), financial markets (4), politics (5), trade policy for declining industries (6), rate of organ donation for transplant cases (7) and has also been evident in monkey behavior (8).”
From Amygdala damage eliminates monetary loss aversion (2010) · cites this paper as [2]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,001–1,028 of 1,028
The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Economic Behaviour
(2008) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511490118 · Cited by 79
What lies beneath: Reframing framing effects
Maule, J., & Vallée-Tourangeau, G. (2006) · Thinking & Reasoning · doi:10.1080/13546780600872585 · Cited by 83
Resisting That Triple-Chocolate Cake: Mental Budgets and Self-Control
Krishnamurthy, P., & Prokopec, S. (2009) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/649650 · Cited by 75
Risk-Responsive Orbitofrontal Neurons Track Acquired Salience
Ogawa, M., van der Meer, M. A. A., Esber, G. R., Cerri, D. H., Stalnaker, T. A., & Schoenbaum, G. (2013) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2012.11.006 · Cited by 74
Christensen, J. C., Shiyanov, P. A., Estepp, J. R., & Schlager, J. J. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0116172 · Cited by 69
Kätsyri, J., Kinnunen, T., Kusumoto, K., Oittinen, P., & Ravaja, N. (2016) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0153712 · Cited by 67
Inside the Mental Voting Booth: An Impression-Driven Process Model of Candidate Evaluation
Lodge, M., & Stroh, P. (1993) · Explorations in Political Psychology · doi:10.1215/9780822396697-011 · Cited by 66
Are some lives more valuable? An ethical preferences approach
Johansson-Stenman, O., & Martinsson, P. (2008) · Journal of Health Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2007.10.001 · Cited by 64
(Hans) Korteling, J. E., & Toet, A. (2022) · Encyclopedia of Behavioral Neuroscience, 2nd edition · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-809324-5.24105-9 · Cited by 65
Approach-Induced Biases in Human Information Sampling
Hunt, L. T., Rutledge, R. B., Malalasekera, W. M. N., Kennerley, S. W., & Dolan, R. J. (2016) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2000638 · Cited by 60
Assessment of Capacity to Consent to Treatment: Challenges, the “ACCT” Approach, Directions
Moye, J., Karel, M. J., Edelstein, B., Hicken, B., Armesto, J. C., & Gurrera, R. J. (2007) · Clinical Gerontologist · doi:10.1080/07317110802072140 · Cited by 55
Lagier, J. C., Colson, P., Tissot Dupont, H., Salomon, J., Doudier, B., Aubry, C., Gouriet, F., Baron, S., Dudouet, P., Flores, R., et al. (2020) · Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease · doi:10.1016/j.tmaid.2020.101624 · Cited by 52
Confirmation Bias as a Social Skill
Dardenne, B., & Leyens, J.-P. (1995) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/01461672952111011 · Cited by 42
Rice, R. E., Gustafson, A., & Hoffman, Z. (2018) · Environmental Communication · doi:10.1080/17524032.2018.1430046 · Cited by 39
Studying and improving reasoning in humans and machines
Yax, N., Anlló, H., & Palminteri, S. (2024) · Communications Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44271-024-00091-8 · Cited by 40
Choi, P., & Coulter, K. S. (2012) · Journal of Retailing · doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2012.04.001 · Cited by 36
Justifying precautionary policies: Incommensurability and uncertainty
Aldred, J. (2013) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.10.006 · Cited by 36
The slave of the passions: experiencing problems and selecting solutions
Overskeid, G. (2000) · Review of General Psychology · doi:10.1037/1089-2680.4.3.284 · Cited by 36
Collision with China: Conceptual Metaphor Analysis, Somatic Marking, and the EP-3 Incident
SLINGERLAND, E., BLANCHARD, E. M., & BOYD-JUDSON, L. (2007) · International studies quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2478.2007.00439.x · Cited by 29
Scagnolari, S., Walker, J., & Maggi, R. (2015) · Accident Analysis & Prevention · doi:10.1016/j.aap.2015.07.002 · Cited by 27
The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment
Haidt, J. (2008) · Reasoning · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511814273.055 · Cited by 27
Assessing citizens’ non-adoption of public e-services in Germany
Distel, B. (2020) · Information Polity · doi:10.3233/ip-190214 · Cited by 23
Chou, C.-Y., Tsoh, J. Y., Smith, L. C., Bain, L. D., Botcheva, L., Chan, E., Chan, J., Eckfield, M., Howell, G., Komaiko, K., et al. (2018) · Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jocrd.2018.01.002 · Cited by 18
Freiburg, M., & Grichnik, D. (2013) · Journal of Behavioral Finance · doi:10.1080/15427560.2013.791295 · Cited by 16
Evolution of Cooperation with Heterogeneous Conditional Cooperators
Battu, B., Pammi, V. S. C., & Srinivasan, N. (2018) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-018-22593-2 · Cited by 11
Behavioral Anomalies and Energy-Related Individual Choices: The Role of Status-Quo Bias
Blasch, J., & Daminato, C. (2018) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3289624 · Cited by 8
Dennett's realisation theory of the relation between folk and scientific psychology
Cussins, A. (1988) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00058659 · Cited by 4
When Your AI Agent Succumbs to Peer-Pressure: Studying Opinion-Change Dynamics of LLMs
Mehdizadeh, A., & Hilbert, M. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.19107
“Additional to ensuring robustness of our experimental stimuli, it is important to recognize that the framing of a question can affect opinion dynamics [103, 104, 105].”
Metadata
- Authors
- Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A.
- Affiliations
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- Venue
- American Psychologist
- Published
- 1984-04
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 341-350
- ISSN
- 0003-066X (ISSN-L)
- 1935-990X
- OpenAlex
- W3123340585
- Cited by
- 6,544
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 164 · 2025: 226 · 2024: 229 · 2023: 228 · 2022: 265 · 2021: 254 · 2020: 332 · 2019: 304 · 2018: 325 · 2017: 261 · 2016: 287 · 2015: 281 · 2014: 274 · 2013: 278 · 2012: 236
- FWCI
- 17.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Psychologist (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Finance › Financial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis
- Keywords
- prospect theory, utility theory, decision making under risk, Amos Tversky, legal compensation, equity premium puzzle, framing effects, rational choice, judgment under uncertainty
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
