The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Developments in Non-Expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk
Abstract
This article reviews recent developments in the economic theory of individual decision making under risk. Since the 1950s it has been known that individual choices violate the standard model of expected utility in predictable ways. Considerable research effort has now been devoted to the project of developing a superior descriptive model. Following an overview of non-expected utility theories which distinguishes between “conventional” and “non-conventional” approaches, the paper seeks to assess these alternative models in terms of empirical success (using laboratory and field data) and theoretical usefulness. The closing sections reflect on some new directions emerging in this literature.
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
The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7455683 · Cited by 18,497
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
Status quo bias in decision making
Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1007/bf00055564 · Cited by 5,897
Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice Under Uncertainty
Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1982) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.2307/2232669 · Cited by 4,042
Support theory: a nonextensional representation of subjective probability
Tversky, A., & Koehler, D. J. (1994) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.101.4.547 · Cited by 1,167
Cited by
Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. (2001) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.267 · Cited by 5,955
Whitmee, S., Haines, A., Beyrer, C., Boltz, F., Capon, A. G., de Souza Dias, B. F., Ezeh, A., Frumkin, H., Gong, P., Head, P., et al. (2015) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(15)60901-1 · Cited by 2,998
A Discounting Framework for Choice With Delayed and Probabilistic Rewards.
Green, L., & Myerson, J. (2004) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.5.769 · Cited by 1,676
Experimenter demand effects in economic experiments
Zizzo, D. J. (2010) · Experimental Economics · doi:10.1007/s10683-009-9230-z · Cited by 1,194
Chapter 113 Men, Women and Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence
Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2008) · Handbook of Experimental Economics Results · doi:10.1016/s1574-0722(07)00113-8 · Cited by 924
Metadata
- Authors
- Starmer, C.
- Venue
- Journal of Economic Literature
- Publisher
- American Economic Association
- Published
- 2000-06-01
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 332-382
- ISSN
- 0022-0515 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2150552447
- Cited by
- 1,899
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 22.55
- Type
- journal article
- 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: Developments in Non-Expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1257/jel.38.2.332
- The paper
- Starmer, C. (2000). Developments in Non-Expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk. Journal of Economic Literature. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.38.2.332
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.
