Risk: The long and the short

Amos Tversky*, Maya Bar-Hillel

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

51 Scopus citations

Abstract

Rebuts L. Lopes's normative objections to expected utility theory and analyzes the "fallacy of large numbers," discussed by P. A. Samuelson (1963), from both mathematical and psychological standpoints. It is suggested that values in risky decisions are gains and losses defined relative to some reference point. Because the value function tends to be concave for gains and convex for losses, the shift of the reference point can produce systematic reversals of preferences. (6 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved).

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)713-717
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
Volume9
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1983

Keywords

  • analysis of P. A. Samuelson's theorem
  • mathematical vs psychological perspectives, decision making under risk, criticism of L. Lopes's article &

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Risk: The long and the short'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this