• Graduate Programs
    • Tinbergen Institute Research Master in Economics
      • Why Tinbergen Institute?
      • Research Master
      • Admissions
      • Course Registration
      • Facilities
      • PhD Vacancies
      • Selected PhD Placements
    • Research Master Business Data Science
    • PhD Vacancies
  • Research
  • Browse our Courses
  • Events
    • Summer School
      • Applied Public Policy Evaluation
      • Deep Learning
      • Economics of Blockchain and Digital Currencies
      • Economics of Climate Change
      • Foundations of Machine Learning with Applications in Python
      • From Preference to Choice: The Economic Theory of Decision-Making
      • Gender in Society
      • Machine Learning for Business
      • Marketing Research with Purpose
      • Sustainable Finance
      • Tuition Fees and Payment
      • Business Data Science Summer School Program
    • Events Calendar
    • Events Archive
    • Tinbergen Institute Lectures
    • 16th Tinbergen Institute Annual Conference
    • Annual Tinbergen Institute Conference
  • News
  • Alumni
    • PhD Theses
    • Master Theses
    • Selected PhD Placements
    • Key alumni publications
    • Alumni Community

Wakker, P. (2023). A Criticism of Bernheim \& Sprenger’s (2020) Tests of Rank Dependence Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 107:1--7.


  • Journal
    Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics

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.