A criticism of Bernheim & Sprenger's (2020) tests of rank dependence

•Prospect theory is defended against unreasonable criticisms by Bernheim & Sprenger.•Problems of separable probability weighting are explained.•The literature and problems of complexity aversion are reviewed. Bernheim and Sprenger (2020, Econometrica; SB) claimed to experimentally falsify rank d...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of behavioral and experimental economics 2023-12, Vol.107, p.101950, Article 101950
1. Verfasser: Wakker, Peter P.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:•Prospect theory is defended against unreasonable criticisms by Bernheim & Sprenger.•Problems of separable probability weighting are explained.•The literature and problems of complexity aversion are reviewed. Bernheim and Sprenger (2020, Econometrica; SB) claimed to experimentally falsify rank dependence in prospect theory. This paper criticizes SB's results and novelty claims. Their experiments only captured well-known heuristics and not genuine preferences. Many falsifications of rank dependence have been made before, and SB's equalizing reductions have also been used before. SB thought to identify probability weighting and utility where they are unidentifiable, invalidating all SB's related claims. SB used an incorrect formula of original prospect theory. Their suggested alternative of rank-independent probability weighting with dependence on the number of outcomes (their “complexity aversion;” a misnomer) has long been discarded.
ISSN:2214-8043
DOI:10.1016/j.socec.2022.101950