The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Parameter-Free Elicitation of Utility and Probability Weighting Functions
Abstract
This paper proposes a two-step method to successively elicit utility functions and decision weights under rank-dependent expected utility theory and its “more descriptive” version: cumulative prospect theory. The novelty of the method is that it is parameter-free, and thus elicits the whole individual preference functional without imposing any prior restriction. This method is used in an experimental study to elicit individual utility and probability weighting functions for monetary outcomes in the gain and loss domains. Concave utility functions are obtained for gains and convex utility functions for losses. The elicited weighting functions satisfy upper and lower subadditivity and are consistent with previous parametric estimations. The data also show that the probability weighting function for losses is more “elevated” than for gains.
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
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
Cited by
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
Music, Pandas, and Muggers: On the Affective Psychology of Value.
Hsee, C. K., & Rottenstreich, Y. (2004) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.133.1.23 · Cited by 654
New paradoxes of risky decision making.
Birnbaum, M. H. (2008) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.115.2.463 · Cited by 386
Prospect Theory and Stock Returns: An Empirical Test
Barberis, N., Mukherjee, A., & Wang, B. (2016) · Review of Financial Studies · doi:10.1093/rfs/hhw049 · Cited by 336
Metadata
- Authors
- Abdellaoui, M.
- Venue
- Management Science
- Published
- 2000-11
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1497-1512
- ISSN
- 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5501
- OpenAlex
- W2116070369
- Cited by
- 926
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 7.74
- 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: Parameter-Free Elicitation of Utility and Probability Weighting Functions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/mnsc.46.11.1497.12080
- The paper
- Abdellaoui, M. (2000). Parameter-Free Elicitation of Utility and Probability Weighting Functions. Management Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.11.1497.12080
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.