This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Levy, M. Articles by Levy, H. Search for Related Content

Prospect Theory: Much Ado About Nothing?

Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, 91905, Israel
Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, 91905, Israel
mslm(mscc.huji.ac.il.
mshlevy(mscc.huji.ac.il.

Prospect theory is a paradigm challenging the expected utility paradigm. One of the fundamental components of prospect theory is the S–shaped value function. The value function is mainly justified by experimental investigation of the certainty equivalents of prospects confined either to the negative or to the positive domain, but not of mixed prospects, which characterize most actual investments. We conduct an experimental study with mixed prospects, using, for the first time, recently developed investment criteria called Prospect Stochastic Dominance (PSD) and Markowitz Stochastic Dominance (MSD). We reject the S–shaped value function, showing that at least 62%–76% of the subjects cannot be characterized by such preferences. We find support for the Markowitz utility function, which is a reversed S–shaped function—exactly the opposite of the prospect theory value function. It is possible that the previous results supporting the S–shaped value function are distorted because the prospects had only positive or only negative outcomes, presenting hypothetical situations which individuals do not usually face, and which are certainly not common in financial markets.

Key Words: prospect theory; prospect stochastic dominance; markowitz stochastic dominance
History: Received: February 1, 2001;

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. Bromiley A Prospect Theory Model of Resource Allocation Decision Analysis, September 1, 2009; 6(3): 124 - 138. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. Wu and A. B. Markle An Empirical Test of Gain-Loss Separability in Prospect Theory Management Science, July 1, 2008; 54(7): 1322 - 1335. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. H. Birnbaum and J. P. Bahra Gain-Loss Separability and Coalescing in Risky Decision Making Management Science, June 1, 2007; 53(6): 1016 - 1028. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Baucells and F. H. Heukamp Stochastic Dominance and Cumulative Prospect Theory Management Science, September 1, 2006; 52(9): 1409 - 1423. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. Baltussen, T. Post, and P. van Vliet Violations of Cumulative Prospect Theory in Mixed Gambles with Moderate Probabilities Management Science, August 1, 2006; 52(8): 1288 - 1290. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. H. Birnbaum Three New Tests of Independence That Differentiate Models of Risky Decision Making Management Science, September 1, 2005; 51(9): 1346 - 1358. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. Post and H. Levy Does Risk Seeking Drive Stock Prices? A Stochastic Dominance Analysis of Aggregate Investor Preferences and Beliefs Rev. Financ. Stud., September 1, 2005; 18(3): 925 - 953. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. Levy and M. Levy Prospect Theory and Mean-Variance Analysis Rev. Financ. Stud., October 1, 2004; 17(4): 1015 - 1041. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. P. Wakker The Data of Levy and Levy (2002) "Prospect Theory: Much Ado About Nothing?" Actually Support Prospect Theory Management Science, July 1, 2003; 49(7): 979 - 981. [Abstract] [PDF]