IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v20y2000i4p404-411.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decision Analysis with Cumulative Prospect Theory

Author

Listed:
  • Ahmed M. Bayoumi

    (Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Bayoumi Inner City Health Research Unit, 2-024 Shuter Wing, St. Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, ON, Canada M5B 1W8; telephone (416) 864-5728; fax: (416) 864-5485; e-mail: (ahmed bayoumi@utoronto.ca))

  • Donald A. Redelmeier

    (Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Bayoumi Inner City Health Research Unit, 2-024 Shuter Wing, St. Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, ON, Canada M5B 1W8; telephone (416) 864-5728; fax: (416) 864-5485; e-mail: (ahmed bayoumi@utoronto.ca))

Abstract

Background. Individuals sometimes express preferences that do not follow expected utility theory. Cumulative prospect theory adjusts for some phenomena by using decision weights rather than probabilities when analyzing a decision tree. Methods. The authors examined how probability transformations from cumulative prospect theory might alter a decision analysis of a prophylactic therapy in AIDS, eliciting utilities from patients with HIV infection (n = 75) and calculating expected outcomes using an established Markov model. They next focused on transformations of three sets of probabilities : 1) the probabilities used in calculating standard-gamble utility scores; 2) the probabilities of being in discrete Markov states; 3) the probabilities of transitioning between Markov states. Results. The same prophylaxis strategy yielded the highest quality-adjusted survival under all transformations. For the average patient, prophylaxis appeared relatively less advantageous when standard-gamble utilities were transformed. Prophylaxis appeared relatively more advantageous when state probabilities were transformed and relatively less advantageous when transition probabilities were transformed. Transforming standard-gamble and transition probabilities simultaneously decreased the gain from prophylaxis by almost half. Sensitivity analysis indicated that even near-linear probability weighting transformations could substantially alter quality-adjusted survival estimates. Conclusion. The magnitude of benefit estimated in a decision-analytic model can change significantly after using cumulative prospect theory. Incorporating cumulative prospect theory into decision analysis can provide a form of sensitivity analysis and may help describe when people deviate from expected utility theory. Key words: decision analysis; cumulative prospect theory; expected utility theory ; standard gamble. (Med Decis Making 2000;20:404-412)

Suggested Citation

  • Ahmed M. Bayoumi & Donald A. Redelmeier, 2000. "Decision Analysis with Cumulative Prospect Theory," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 20(4), pages 404-411, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:20:y:2000:i:4:p:404-411
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X0002000404
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X0002000404
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X0002000404?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    2. Peter Wakker & Anne Stiggelbout, 1995. "Explaining Distortions in Utility Elicitation through the Rank-dependent Model for Risky Choices," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 15(2), pages 180-186, June.
    3. Drazen Prelec, 1998. "The Probability Weighting Function," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 497-528, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Luis Pinto & Peter P. Wakker, 2001. "Making Descriptive Use of Prospect Theory to Improve the Prescriptive Use of Expected Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(11), pages 1498-1514, November.
    2. Reza Yaesoubi & Stephen Roberts, 2010. "A game-theoretic framework for estimating a health purchaser’s willingness-to-pay for health and for expansion," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 358-377, December.
    3. Valerie Seror, 2008. "Fitting observed and theoretical choices – women's choices about prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(5), pages 557-577, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Han Bleichrodt & José Luis Pinto, 2000. "An experimental test of loss aversion and scale compatibility," Working Papers, Research Center on Health and Economics 467, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    2. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Luis Pinto, 2000. "A Parameter-Free Elicitation of the Probability Weighting Function in Medical Decision Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(11), pages 1485-1496, November.
    3. Shi, Yun & Cui, Xiangyu & Zhou, Xunyu, 2020. "Beta and Coskewness Pricing: Perspective from Probability Weighting," SocArXiv 5rqhv, Center for Open Science.
    4. Alex Stomper & Marie-Louise Vierø, 2015. "Iterated Expectations Under Rank-dependent Expected Utility And Model Consistency," Working Paper 1228, Economics Department, Queen's University.
    5. Filiz-Ozbay, Emel & Guryan, Jonathan & Hyndman, Kyle & Kearney, Melissa & Ozbay, Erkut Y., 2015. "Do lottery payments induce savings behavior? Evidence from the lab," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 1-24.
    6. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Olivier L’Haridon & Horst Zank, 2010. "Separating curvature and elevation: A parametric probability weighting function," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 39-65, August.
    7. Daniel Woods & Mustafa Abdallah & Saurabh Bagchi & Shreyas Sundaram & Timothy Cason, 2022. "Network defense and behavioral biases: an experimental study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(1), pages 254-286, February.
    8. Che-Yuan Liang, 2017. "Optimal inequality behind the veil of ignorance," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 83(3), pages 431-455, October.
    9. Xue Dong He & Sang Hu & Jan Obłój & Xun Yu Zhou, 2017. "Technical Note—Path-Dependent and Randomized Strategies in Barberis’ Casino Gambling Model," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 65(1), pages 97-103, February.
    10. Ariane Charpin, 2018. "Tests des modèles de décision en situation de risque. Le cas des parieurs hippiques en France," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 69(5), pages 779-803.
    11. Bocqueho, Geraldine & Jacquet, Florence & Reynaud, Arnaud, 2011. "Expected Utility or Prospect Theory Maximizers? Results from a Structural Model based on Field-experiment Data," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114257, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Freudenreich, Hanna & Musshoff, Oliver & Wiercinski, Ben, 2017. "The Relationship between Farmers' Shock Experiences and their Uncertainty Preferences - Experimental Evidence from Mexico," GlobalFood Discussion Papers 256212, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    13. Gao, Dong Li & Xie, Wei & Ming Lee, Eric Wai, 2022. "Individual-level exit choice behaviour under uncertain risk," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 604(C).
    14. Basieva, Irina & Khrennikova, Polina & Pothos, Emmanuel M. & Asano, Masanari & Khrennikov, Andrei, 2018. "Quantum-like model of subjective expected utility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 150-162.
    15. Olivier Chanel & Graciela Chichilnisky, 2009. "The influence of fear in decisions: Experimental evidence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 271-298, December.
    16. Tsang, Ming, 2020. "Estimating uncertainty aversion using the source method in stylized tasks with varying degrees of uncertainty," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    17. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2013. "Salience and Consumer Choice," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(5), pages 803-843.
    18. Yves Alarie & Georges Dionne, 2005. "Testing Explanations of Preference Reversal: a Model," Cahiers de recherche 0510, CIRPEE.
    19. Døskeland, Trond M. & Nordahl, Helge A., 2008. "Optimal pension insurance design," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 382-392, March.
    20. Holden, Stein T. & Tilahun, Mesfin, 2019. "How related are risk preferences and time preferences?," CLTS Working Papers 4/19, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies, revised 16 Oct 2019.

    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:sae:medema:v:20:y:2000:i:4:p:404-411. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.