Resolving Rabin's paradox

被引：7

作者：

Bleichrodt, Han ^{[1
,2
]}

Doctor, Jason N. ^{[3
]}

Gao, Yu ^{[4
]}

Li, Chen ^{[1
]}

Meeker, Daniella ^{[5
]}

Wakker, Peter P. ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] Erasmus Univ, Erasmus Sch Econ, NL-3000 DR Rotterdam, Netherlands

[2] Australian Natl Univ, Res Sch Econ, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia

[3] Univ Southern Calif, Sol Price Sch Publ Policy, Los Angeles, CA 90033 USA

[4] Peking Univ, Guanghua Sch Management, Dept Appl Econ, Yiheyuan Rd 5, Beijing 100871, Peoples R China

[5] Univ South Calif, Keck Sch Med, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA

来源：

JOURNAL OF RISK AND UNCERTAINTY | 2019年 / 59卷 / 03期

关键词：

Rabin's paradox; Reference dependence; Loss aversion; Prospect theory; EXPECTED-UTILITY THEORY; STAKES RISK-AVERSION; PROSPECT-THEORY; SUBJECT MISCONCEPTIONS; REFERENCE DEPENDENCE; DECISION-MAKING; PAY-WILLINGNESS; ACCEPT GAP; CALIBRATION; ATTITUDES;

D O I：

10.1007/s11166-019-09318-0

中图分类号：

F8 [财政、金融];

学科分类号：

0202 ;

摘要：

We present a theoretical model of Rabin's famous calibration paradox that resolves confusions in the literature and that makes it possible to identify the causes of the paradox. Using suitable experimental stimuli, we show that the paradox truly violates expected utility and that it is caused by reference dependence. Rabin already showed that utility curvature alone cannot explain his paradox. We, more strongly, do not find any contribution of utility curvature to the explanation of the paradox. We find no contribution of probability weighting either. We conclude that Rabin's paradox underscores the importance of reference dependence.

引用

页码：239 / 260

页数：22