IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jrisku/v20y2000i2p189-211.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is "Generic Utility Theory" a Suitable Theory of Choice Behavior for Gambles with Mixed Gains and Losses?

Author

Listed:
  • Chechile, Richard A
  • Butler, Susan F

Abstract

Miyamoto's (1988, 1992) generic utility theory (GUT) subsumes a broad class of bilinear utility models. Chechile and Cooke (1997) tested the GUT class of models and found model failure due to the systematic variation of a parameter that should be a positive constant across a range of contexts. In the current study, an improved experimental design is employed to evaluate utility theory. The current study provides further evidence against the GUT class of models for mixed gambles. Moreover, evidence is also provided to demonstrate individual behavior that is incompatible with a coherent bilinear utility theory of choice behavior in the context of mixed gambles with gains and losses. Copyright 2000 by Kluwer Academic Publishers

Suggested Citation

  • Chechile, Richard A & Butler, Susan F, 2000. "Is "Generic Utility Theory" a Suitable Theory of Choice Behavior for Gambles with Mixed Gains and Losses?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 189-211, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jrisku:v:20:y:2000:i:2:p:189-211
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://journals.kluweronline.com/issn/0895-5646/contents
    File Function: link to full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Levy, Haim & Levy, Moshe, 2002. "Experimental test of the prospect theory value function: A stochastic dominance approach," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 1058-1081, November.
    2. George Wu & Alex B. Markle, 2008. "An Empirical Test of Gain-Loss Separability in Prospect Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(7), pages 1322-1335, July.
    3. Sneddon, Robert & Luce, R. Duncan, 2001. "Empirical Comparisons of Bilinear and Nonbilinear Utility Theories," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 71-94, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jrisku:v:20:y:2000:i:2:p:189-211. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.