Welcome to the new version of CaltechAUTHORS. Login is currently restricted to library staff. If you notice any issues, please email coda@library.caltech.edu
Published August 11, 2017 | Submitted
Report Open

Prospect theory in the wild: Evidence from the field

Abstract

The workhorses of economic analysis are simple formal models that can explain naturally occurring phenomena. Reflecting this taste, economists often say they will incorporate more psychological ideas into economics if those ideas can parsimoniously account for field data better than standard theories do. Taking this statement seriously, this article describes 10 regularities in naturally occurring data that are anomalies for expected utility theory but can all be explained by three simple elements of prospect theory: loss aversion, reflection effects, and nonlinear weighting of probability; moreover, the assumption is made that people isolate decisions (or edit them) from others they might be grouped with (Read, Loewenstein, and Rabin 1999; cf. Thaler, 1999). I hope to show how much success has already been had applying prospect theory to field data and to inspire economists and psychologists to spend more time in the wild.

Additional Information

This paper was prepared for D. Kahneman and A. Tversky (Eds.), Choices, Values and Frames (in press). The research was supported by NSF grant SBR-9601236 and the hospitality of the Center for Advanced Study in Behavioral Sciences during 1997-98. Linda Babcock and Barbara Mellers gave helpful suggestions. Published as Camerer, Colin F. (2001) Prospect Theory In The Wild: Evidence From The Field. In: Choices, Values, and Frames. Contemporary Psychology. No.47. American Psychological Association , Washington, DC, pp. 288-300.

Attached Files

Submitted - sswp1037.pdf

Files

sswp1037.pdf
Files (434.7 kB)
Name Size Download all
md5:1ca04b64ec4405b405455d5dd416bba5
434.7 kB Preview Download

Additional details

Created:
August 19, 2023
Modified:
January 14, 2024