TEORI PROSPEK DAN PENGAMBILAN KEPUTUSAN DALAM KONDISI BERISIKO: TINJAUAN LITERATUR SISTEMATIS (2020-2026)

Authors

  • Linda Susilowati Universitas Negeri Semarang
  • Dwi Cahyaningdyah FEB Program Studi Magister Manajemen, Universitas Negeri Semarang

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.35446/diklatreview.v9i3.2592

Keywords:

prospect theory, cumulative prospect theory, Results, risks, loss aversion, probability weighting.

Abstract

Prospect Theory (PT) is one of the most influential theories in behavioral economic and financial psychology, explaining how individuals respond to uncertainty through loss aversion, probability weighting, and reference dependence. This article conducts a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) of 9 open-access international articles published in 2020–2025 that test decision-making behavior under risk using PT and Cumulative Prospect Theory (CPT). The extraction procedure uses the PRISMA protocol, with main categories: research context, theoretical model, empirical method, findings, and implications. The synthesis results show the consistency of loss aversion behavior, non-linear probability weighting, and framing effect that cause investors to deviate from rationality assumptions. The study also shows variations in elicitation parameters and methods, but generally confirms that risk preferences are influenced by psychological bias and market context. The theoretical implications emphasize the need for a decision model that considers behavioral bias, while practical implications recommend education-based and debiasing interventions to improve the quality of investment decisions. This review is limited to limited sample and methodological heterogeneity, and suggests future research to expand the empirical context and integration of experimental approaches.

References

Barberis, N. C. (2013). Thirty years of prospect theory in economics: A review and assessment. In Journal of Economic Perspectives (Vol. 27, Issue 1). https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.27.1.173

Chai, J., & Ngai, E. W. T. (2020). The variable precision method for elicitation of probability weighting functions. Decision Support Systems, 128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2019.113166

Cubitt, R., Kopsacheilis, O., & Starmer, C. (2022). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the Description - Experience gap. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 65(2), 105–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-022-09393-w

D’Souza, M. F., & Augusto Sampaio Franco de Lima, G. (2021). Narcissism, risk and uncertainties: analysis in the light of prospect and fuzzy-trace theories. RAUSP Management Journal, 56(1), 129–147. https://doi.org/10.1108/RAUSP-10-2019-0226

Higgins, K., Longo, A., & Hutchinson, G. (2022). Experimental auction confirmation that social desirability bias does not predict willingness to pay for eco-labeled goods. Experimental Results, 3. https://doi.org/10.1017/exp.2021.24

Hu, Y., Feng, T., & Li, M. (2025). Examining the temporary use behavior of autonomous vehicles under uncertainty: A stated preference analysis. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2025.104520

Kai-Ineman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 363–391.

Khan, M. M., & Vipin, B. (2025). Abundance Versus Scarcity: An Experimental Study of Financially Constrained Newsvendors. Journal of Operations Management.

Paya, I., Peel, D. A., & Georgalos, K. (2023). On the predictions of cumulative prospect theory for third and fourth order risk preferences. Theory and Decision, 95(2), 337–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-022-09920-w

Perry, N., & Shankar, S. (2025). Allocating conservation resources between uncertain future states of nature. Ecological Economics, 234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2025.108610

Rieger, M. O., Wang, M., & Hens, T. (2020). Risk preferences around the world. In World Scientific Series in Finance (Vol. 16). https://doi.org/10.1142/9789811221958_0006

Uzhga‐rebrov, O., & Grabusts, P. (2021). Cumulative prospect theory version with fuzzy values of outcome estimates. Risks, 9(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/risks9040072

v Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1953). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University Press.

Downloads

Published

2026-01-04 — Updated on 2026-01-04

Versions