Reduction Invariance and Prelec's Weighting Functions

Journal of Mathematical Psychology

Volumn 45, Issue 1, 2001, Pages 167-179

  Luce, R Duncan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Compound invariance; Cumulative prospect theory; Prelec's weighting functions; Rank dependent utility; Reduction invariance; Separable utility

Indexed keywords

EID: 0000002532     PISSN: 00222496     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/jmps.1999.1301     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Abdellaoui, M. (1999). Parameter-free elicitation of utilities and probability weighting functions. Manuscript.
2. Aczél, J. (1966). Lectures on functional equations and their applications. New York: Academic Press.
3. Aczél, J., Luce, R. D., & Maksa, G. (1996). Solutions to three functional equations arising from different ways of measuring utility. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 204, 451-471.
4. Birnbaum, M. H., Coffey, G., Mellers, B. A., & Weiss, R. (1992). Utility measurement: Configural-weight theory and the judge's point of view. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 331-346.
5. Cho, Y., & Luce, R. D. (1995). Tests of hypotheses about certainty equivalents and joint receipt of gambles. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64, 229-248.
6. Cho, Y., Luce, R. D., & von Winterfeldt, D. (1994). Test of assumptions about the joint receipt of gambles in rank- and sign-dependent utility theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 931-943.
7. Gonzalez, R., & Wu, G. (1999). On the shape of the probability weighting function. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 129-166.
8. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291.
9. Karmarkar, U. S. (1978). Subjectively weighted utility: A descriptive extension of expected utility model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 21, 61-72.
10. Karmarkar, U. S. (1979). Subjectively weighted utility and the Allais paradox. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 24, 67-72.
11. Keller, L. R. (1985). Testing of the "reduction of compound alternatives" principle. OMEGA. The International Journal of Management Science, 13, 349-358.
12. Krantz, D. H., Luce, R. D., Suppes, P., & Tversky, A. (1971). Foundations of measurement (Vol. 1). San Diego: Academic Press.
13. Luce, R. D. (1991). Rank- and sign-dependent linear utility models for binary gambles. Journal of Economic Theory, 53, 75-100.
14. Luce, R. D. (1996). When four distinct ways to measure utility are the same. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 40, 297-317.
15. Luce, R. D., & Fishburn, P. C. (1991). Rank- and sign-dependent linear utility models for finite first-order gambles. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 4, 25-59.
16. Luce, R. D., & Fishburn, P. C. (1995). A note on deriving rank-dependent utility using additive joint receipts. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 11, 5-16.
17. Prelec, D. (1998). The probability weighting function. Econometrica, 66, 497-527.
18. Preston, M. G., & Baratta, P. (1948). An experimental study of the auction-value of an uncertain outcome. American Journal of Psychology, 61, 183-193.
19. Quiggin, J. (1993). Generalized expected utility theory: The rank-dependent model. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
20. Sneddon, R. (submitted). Bias in a PEST procedure.
21. Tversky, A. (1967). Utility theory and additivity analysis of risky choices. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 75, 27-36.
22. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 204-217.
23. Wu, G., & Gonzalez, R. (1996). Curvature of the probability weighting function. Management Science, 42, 1676-1690.