Developments in Non-Expected Utility Theory¶
Starmer, C. (2000). Developments in Non-Expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk. Journal of Economic Literature.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Domain-specific¶
- Probability Weighting Function
- Lotteries and gambling: small chances of large gains can receive disproportionate decision weight. Insurance: small probabilities of severe loss can motivate premiums above expected loss. Medical decisions: rare side effects or treatment successes influence choice nonlinearly. Safety and public policy: low-probability catastrophic hazards compete with common moderate harms. Consumer warranties: a small failure probability can receive more choice weight than its frequency alone predicts. Experimental choice: common-ratio and common-consequence designs identify departures from linear probability weighting
This sourceStarmer's survey of non-expected-utility theory, which establishes these designs as the instruments producing systematic violations of expected utility; it assesses probability weighting alongside rival explanations rather than treating the designs as identifying weighting nonlinearity specifically.
Supported in partVerified against the source
- Lotteries and gambling: small chances of large gains can receive disproportionate decision weight. Insurance: small probabilities of severe loss can motivate premiums above expected loss. Medical decisions: rare side effects or treatment successes influence choice nonlinearly. Safety and public policy: low-probability catastrophic hazards compete with common moderate harms. Consumer warranties: a small failure probability can receive more choice weight than its frequency alone predicts. Experimental choice: common-ratio and common-consequence designs identify departures from linear probability weighting
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:9b751fed5848 · see in the full table