Abstract
Two recently published studies argue that conventional parameterizations of cumulative prospect theory (CPT) fail to resolve the St. Petersburg Paradox. Yet as a descriptive theory CPT is not intended to account for the local representativeness effect, which is known to induce 'alternation bias' on binary iid sequences such as those generated by coin tossing in St. Petersburg gambles. Once alternation bias is controlled for, conventional parameterizations of CPT yield finite certainty equivalents for the St. Petersburg gamble, negating the suggested need for reparameterization. Moreover, the associated willingness to pay estimates fall within the generally accepted empirical range.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
