The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Curvature of the Probability Weighting Function
Abstract
When individuals choose among risky alternatives, the psychological weight attached to an outcome may not correspond to the probability of that outcome. In rank-dependent utility theories, including prospect theory, the probability weighting function permits probabilities to be weighted nonlinearly. Previous empirical studies of the weighting function have suggested an inverse S-shaped function, first concave and then convex. However, these studies suffer from a methodological shortcoming: estimation procedures have required assumptions about the functional form of the value and/or weighting functions. We propose two preference conditions that are necessary and sufficient for concavity and convexity of the weighting function. Empirical tests of these conditions are independent of the form of the value function. We test these conditions using preference “ladders” (a series of questions that differ only by a common consequence). The concavity-convexity ladders validate previous findings of an S-shaped weighting function, concave up to p < 0.40, and convex beyond that probability. The tests also show significant nonlinearity away from the boundaries, 0 and 1. Finally, we fit the ladder data with weighting functions proposed by Tversky and Kahneman (Tversky, Amos, Daniel Kahneman. 1992. Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. J. Risk and Uncertainty 5 297–323.) and Prelec (Prelec, Dražen. 1995. The probability weighting function. Unpublished paper.).
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
Choice Under Uncertainty: Problems Solved and Unsolved
Machina, M. J. (1992) · Huebner International Series on Risk, Insurance and Economic Security · doi:10.1007/978-94-015-7957-5_2 · Cited by 948
Additive Representations of Preferences: A New Foundation of Decision Analysis
Wakker, P. P. (1988) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 338
Recent developments in modelling preferences under risk
Weber, M., & Camerer, C. (1987) · OR Spektrum · doi:10.1007/bf01721094 · Cited by 166
Cited by
Developments in Non-Expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk
Starmer, C. (2000) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.38.2.332 · Cited by 1,899
Weighing risk and uncertainty.
Tversky, A., & Fox, C. R. (1995) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.102.2.269 · Cited by 913
Money, Kisses, and Electric Shocks: On the Affective Psychology of Risk
Rottenstreich, Y., & Hsee, C. K. (2001) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00334 · Cited by 825
Stewart, N., Chater, N., & Brown, G. D. A. (2006) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.10.003 · Cited by 737
Risk and Time Preferences: Linking Experimental and Household Survey Data from Vietnam
Tanaka, T., Camerer, C. F., & Nguyen, Q. (2016) · Behavioral Economics of Preferences, Choices, and Happiness · doi:10.1007/978-4-431-55402-8_1 · Cited by 731
Metadata
- Authors
- Wu, G., & Gonzalez, R.
- Venue
- Management Science
- Published
- 1996-12
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1676-1690
- ISSN
- 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5501
- OpenAlex
- W1978844375
- Cited by
- 987
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 10.77
- 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: Curvature of the Probability Weighting Function. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/mnsc.42.12.1676
- The paper
- Wu, G., & Gonzalez, R. (1996). Curvature of the Probability Weighting Function. Management Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.42.12.1676
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.