Talk:Prospect theory

Introduction wrong

"Losses hurt more than gains feel good (loss aversion). This differs greatly from expected utility theory, in which a rational agent is indifferent to the reference point. In expected utility theory, the individual only cares about absolute wealth, not relative wealth in any given situation."

This part is just wrong, nowhere in expected utility theory is defined how the utility function is shaped, loss aversion can be a part of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.44.202.15 (talk) 10:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Example?

Could someone who understands PT edit the example section so that it makes sense? There are grammar errors if read aloud and avoiding words like "convexity" or at least defining them would be a great idea for us uneducated masses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.123.208 (talk) 07:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

stuff removed

Is there a reason this article has been removed? Dieter Simon 23:30 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I've removed this dead link

• Cornell University Lecture Notes on Behavorial Economics and Prospect Theory

we need something good to replace it TitaniumDreads 14:15, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

criticisms of prospect theory

The status quo criticisms of prospect theory from economists are much less interesting than those leveled by people like Gerd Gigerenzer. I'm definitely a neophyte with this, but would be curious to know wether or not he's a lone wolf in this regard. The little I've read by him seems fairly sophisticated and on the mark.

I'm unfamiliar with his work, but feel free to add what you know. I hope he's not attacking straw men, though, Tversky and co. don't say that biases are necessarily sub-optimal, they just identify that decisions aren't made in the way a rational caluclating machine (homo economicus) would. Psychobabble 01:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry, he's more like a lone wolf (but with a big working group) who tries to prove that only simple models can explain the world ('fast and frugal'). Economists don't notice him much.

Picture

Can whoever made the picture fix that line so that it is smooth? I know it's a small matter, but it's just not aesthetically pleasing. thank you! 70.111.248.60 02:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

 If the following description in the article is correct: 
 "...people decide which outcomes they see as basically identical and they set a reference point
 and consider lower outcomes as losses and larger as gains." 
 then shouldn't the "Reference Point" actually be called the Reference LEVEL, and applied to the
 horizontal line (which also denotes, by coincidence, the horizontal axis of the graph) ?
 LookingGlass (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

In the literature it is described as "reference point", so no matter what may or may not be an appropriate name, that is what it is called (Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky (1979) via The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making, 1993) 80.71.135.66 (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The picture seems to be missing the loss aversion, which should be shown as a change in the slope at the reference point. Please see the original figure from Kahneman and Tversky (1979 p. 279). 88.114.88.64 (talk) 09:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Another good source

It's been suggested this source is a better introduction to the subject. http://www.econport.org/econport/request?page=man_ru_advanced_prospect Mathiastck 23:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Looks like a nice introduction to this topic. However, it mentions a couple of effects that are not that closely related to Prospect Theory and omits some points. Something in this style would also be too lengthy for a wikipedia entry, I think. Nevertheless, I will add a link to this page, since it is a very useful resource by itself! Rieger 18:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

 Could you detail your points please Rieger?  I've read the article referred to and it seems very
 clearly and succinclty set out to me.  It seems a lot simpler too IMHO and on a quite 
 technical topic.
 LookingGlass (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone make this article understandable?

I am totally lost basically at every word. I dont understand at all what it is even about. Is there some real life implications? It was about society after all (right?). Considering that it is supposed to be quite important I guess it would be nice if even non-scientists could get a introduction. Or perhaps a real world example could help? --Thomas 02:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I could give it a try, e.g. by adding some more fluff at the beginning, but please promise to give some further input, once I am donw with my improvements... Rieger 05:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Done, hope it is a little better now... However, the article needs some more attention: There are many repetitions, complicated wording, it's fuzzy towards the end, many interesting things are missing, the references are assorted etc. Would be nice at least to explain the four-fold pattern of risk-attitudes, for instance! If I just had more time! Maybe somebody can help? :( Rieger 05:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Added a little bit more. Maybe somebody can improve my bad writing a little? If I had more time, I would also add a table for the four-fold pattern of risk-attitudes... Rieger 20:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

"Real world Example" ? Poker. The Gnome 11:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Prospect Theory examples

Anyone think some examples might be warranted? I recently came across an interesting idea that Louis the XIV's actions in regards to his many wars (War of Devolution, Franco-Dutch War, Nine Years War, and War of the Spanish Succession) are a prime example of prospect theory. Anyone think that would be a worthwhile addition to the article? I can provide proper references, as well. - The Fwanksta 17:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't find the explanation of prospect theory to be at all clear. Too much focus on "implications" and not enough explation of the theory. More examples would help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.178.133.65 (talk) 21:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Cumulative prospect theory should be merged into this article. It can't fill its own article, and is defined mainly through its differences with Prospect theory. There is no reason for it to have its own page. --76.217.95.43 (talk) 02:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The work is done by similar researchers, and one is a refinement of the earlier idea. It seems like merging would be a good idea. Edchi (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I prefer two reasonably sized articles over one lengthy article. If a reader wants to know about one thing, he can read only one. If he wants to know both, there are links... Instead of merging (which would make some work) I would rather propose to improve the article (in particular adding limitations of the theory etc.) But that's only my opinion. Rieger (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree to the merge. While it would nice to have two shorter articles, I doubt that someone new to this would understand cumulative prospect theory with no prior knowledge about Prospect theory. The alternative would be to introduce Prospect Theory in Cum, which would just add to the reading burden - overall - to anyone wanting to know about both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KapparOlsen (talk • contribs) 22:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the merge. Cumulative prospect theory makes much more sense as a section than as its own article, especially as the CUm. article has only one reference, and that reference presents it as an advance in prospect theory. If both articles were fully developed, then pretty much all the content of the Cum. article will be in this one, so why have a separate article? MartinPoulter (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the merge. They are two separate theories, with somewhat different applications. While cumulative prospect theory takes some parts of prospect theory, it is still seperate. Also, from an academic view, I have seen them referenced separately (I.E. prospect theory has not been superceded by cumulative prospect theory). Just my two cents though. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 05:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with merge. CPT is a major theory in both psychology and economics. You don't have to know about PT first in order to understand CPT. IMHO, what this article needs most is to be rewritten. The article doesn't provide enough of the detail about CPT (what evidence it is trying to explain, more details about how CPT works etc.) The two equations currently provided are to abstract to give any real idea of how CPT works, it would make much more sense to only talk about the equations for the discrete case and give real examples. There is also no discussion about probability weighting functions, an other major component of CPT. There have been over 2500 citations of the paper, many of them with interesting results. There are definitely other sources out there that should be cited in this article. Yes, CPT is an "advancement" over PT, but merging the two articles would hide just how big of an advancement CPT is. Ggdh (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with merge. Encyclopedic utility is best served with focussed articles and short lead sections, not larger all-comprising ones. CPT article needs improvement, and it not doubt has potential, with 400+ hits i Gbooks alone. Worthy as s stand-alone. Power.corrupts (talk) 10:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is cluttered and disorganized, but worse is that in its meandering way it touts how PT will solve every intellectual mystery ever. We need to put more criticism and focus more on what prospect theory is, rather than advertise for it. By the way I do believe that PT is an excellent model and should be taught in undergraduate economics classes as a more realistic alternative to Von Neumann-Morgenstern expected utility in situations where the model calls for this level of specificity. Crasshopper (talk) 06:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

USELESS AS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA ENTRY

There are several complaints of incomprehensibility above. Come on! An encyclopedia entry is not for afficionados - it is for people who want to know what prospect theory is. 110.20.15.197 (talk) 08:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC) Pepper

---

I cannot understand more than half of what is written. This is not an afficionado vs casual reader issue. Someone who knows this topic please edit it to make it at least a little readable

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravi2445 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to add a section that discusses policy applying prospect theory (loss aversion) within our educational system.

Prospect theory, specifically loss aversion has recently been tested by notable scholars and more recently by Dr. Roland Fryer and has shown positive behavior change of educators within the educational system. I would like to add a section showing other applications of prospect theory within this setting. I have been studying within the field of education and administration for the last 10 years and I hold a doctorate in Educational leadership and Administration from an accredited university in the U.S. I do not plan to add any independent research within this topic and will present my additions in a neutral and verifiable manner. Please let me know if there are any comments, suggestions, or objections to my intended addition. Fmerenda 19:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmerenda (talk • contribs)

In the absence of any objections I will begin to add a section regarding the above research utilizing loss aversion from behavioral economics to illustrate a policy that relies upon a specifically framed merit pay intervention.Fmerenda 05:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmerenda (talk • contribs)

Hi, firstly, if you do not have an account I suggest you get one and then sign any comments/posts/edits etc you make so that you can stay advised of responses etc. Regarding your proposal for adding a section it sounds to me that a simple note as to the application you refer to would suffice. I suggest that the aricle is about the theory itself rather than about any specific application or illustrations of it so any addition you wish to make should stay focused and on topic. An example of the way this could be done would be to use the research you refer to as a citation to substantiate the pertinent statements in the article as it stands. --LookingGlass (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your feedback. I respectfully disagree however, I believe adding content to explain its application and using real-world examples should be more than a simple note. The article as it stands has a section entitled application, but does not provide any examples of its application. Additionally, reading the other comments, it seems many people do not fully understand prospect theory and providing examples of its application may assist with clarity. Thoughts? Fmerenda 00:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmerenda (talk • contribs)

I apologise, you seem to have an account. Please sign your comments with four tilds "~" or by clicking on the pen icon in the menu bar of the comment box.

Regarding your proposals, an example should be subservient to that which it is an example of. The key is balance. As the article sets out: "Prospect theory is a behavioral economic theory that describes decisions between alternatives that involve risk, where the probabilities of outcomes are known". Your example is of its application in a particular field however it can be applied in any field.

In my opinion the cause of the article's lack of clarity is that the article doesn't align with wiki style guidelines. In these it is recommended that articles proceed from the general to the specific in such a way that the subject can be understood by a general non-specialist reader. As it is, the article lacks an adequate introduction, has no sections that expand on the introduction, or adequately explain its history and development, etc. Instead, the article quickly moves into a technical formula and brief explantion/description rather than any general introduction. The article also has no in-line references/citations. Those references that are given are non-specific and so cannot be reasonably verified or tied to the text. The style of the article is not encyclopedic but rather colloqial and chatty, like a magazine article in my opinion. If these matters were addressed any need to fill out the examples section would be significantly reduced.

Finally, I think that consideration should be given to either creating new articles, if the subject of the example is substantive, or of adding into other pertinent articles sections on the use of Prospect Theory in their topic.

LookingGlass (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the article could be more aligned with the items you mentioned for clarity purposes, readability, and wiki style guidelines. Those issues need to be addressed. However, I still feel that giving real-world applications within any field will also help. It isn't the fact that it can be utilized in various manners/fields, but more importantly how it is used and the behavioral reasoning of why it works. By providing examples in Education and of course others can add other fields it has been applied to, may enable readers to put it all together. Thoughts? Fmerenda 04:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmerenda (talk • contribs)

Fmerenda, you seem either to not understand or to disregard the two points I made, both of which regard wiki practice:

1. You continue to NOT to sign your comments.

2. "an example should be subservient to that which it is an example of". I see no purpose in reiterating an expansion of that.

--LookingGlass (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I do respectfully disagree again, yet I do understand what you are stating. I do think the topic should be made clearer, but additionally an example of the topic is just as important, if not more to provide clarity for the readers. It doesn't have to be one or another.

You disagree and yet do not say with WHAT! I have NOT written that examples CANNOT provide clarity. LookingGlass (talk) 12:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why when I sign the comments, it is not appearing that way all the time.

Sign your articles by clicking the icon (at the top) OR just type four tilds "~". Do ONLY one of these and you will have no problem. LookingGlass (talk) 12:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Although I appreciate the comments of "LookingGlass", I would also appreciate others points of view as well, in order to make an informed decision regarding my addition and how the COMMUNITY feels about it. Fmerenda 16:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Fmerenda 16:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmerenda (talk • contribs) Fmerenda 05:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

You ask for comment but do not address what is offered. What, exactly, are you seeking? LookingGlass (talk) 12:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Template tag - Multiple issues

In my opinion the article lacks clarity as it doesn't align with wiki style guidelines. In these it is recommended that articles proceed from the general to the specific in such a way that the subject can be understood by a general non-specialist reader. As it is, the article lacks an adequate introduction, has no sections that expand on the introduction, or adequately explain its history and development, etc. Instead, the article quickly moves into a technical formula and brief explantion/description rather than any general introduction.

The article also has no in-line references/citations. Those references that are given are non-specific and so cannot be reasonably verified or tied to the text. The style of the article is not encyclopedic but rather colloqial and chatty, like a magazine article in my opinion.

LookingGlass (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)