IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jrisku/v29y2004i2p181-197.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Incorporating Framing into Prospect Theory Modeling: A Mixture-Model Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Mei Wang
  • Paul S. Fischbeck

Abstract

This paper illustrates the use of a statistical technique, finite mixture models, to fit the parameters in cumulative prospect theory. For a given decision, some individuals may adopt a gain frame, while others may adopt a loss frame. By using finite mixture models, the best fitting parameters can be obtained for the two subgroups, even though the information about subjective frames was not available. Our application uses two health insurance survey datasets collected by Rand and Chinese State Natural Science Foundation, respectively. The results are compared with previous studies on framing effects and parameterizations of prospect theory.

Suggested Citation

  • Mei Wang & Paul S. Fischbeck, 2004. "Incorporating Framing into Prospect Theory Modeling: A Mixture-Model Approach," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 181-197, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jrisku:v:29:y:2004:i:2:p:181-197
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://journals.kluweronline.com/issn/0895-5646/contents
    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. Campbell Pryor & Amy Perfors & Piers D. L. Howe, 2018. "Reversing the endowment effect," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(3), pages 275-286, May.
    2. Marc Oliver Rieger & Mei Wang & Thorsten Hens, 2017. "Estimating cumulative prospect theory parameters from an international survey," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 82(4), pages 567-596, April.
    3. Cristóbal De La Maza & Alex Davis & Cleotilde Gonzalez & Inês Azevedo, 2019. "Understanding Cumulative Risk Perception from Judgments and Choices: An Application to Flood Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 488-504, February.
    4. Dennis Fok & Richard Paap & Philip Hans Franses, 2014. "Incorporating Responsiveness to Marketing Efforts in Brand Choice Modeling," Econometrics, MDPI, vol. 2(1), pages 1-25, February.
    5. Yehuda Izhakian, 2012. "Ambiguity Measurement," Working Papers 12-01, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics.
    6. W. Wong & R. Chan, 2008. "Prospect and Markowitz stochastic dominance," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 105-129, January.
    7. Marc Oliver Rieger & Mei Wang & Thorsten Hens, 2015. "Risk Preferences Around the World," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(3), pages 637-648, March.
    8. Rieger, Marc Oliver & Wang, Mei & Huang, Po-Kai & Hsu, Yuan-Lin, 2022. "Survey evidence on core factors of behavioral biases," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    9. repec:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:3:p:275-286 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Metzger, Lars Peter & Rieger, Marc Oliver, 2019. "Non-cooperative games with prospect theory players and dominated strategies," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 396-409.

    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:29:y:2004:i:2:p:181-197. 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.