Load content from www.icalc.co.il?
Loading external content may reveal information to 3rd parties.
Learn more Allow
Prospect analysis qualitative
Reference endowment qualitative
New endowment qualitative 1
Decision weight of Outcome 1
Postulados Teoría de Prospectos 2
Situacion del decisor (Frame)
Posicionamiento del resultado en la curva de Ganancias y perdidas
Asignacion de peso a la probabilidad de exito
Busqueda Maximiza Ganancias?
Actitud hacia el riesgo segun frame
“Applied to the Cuban missile crisis, the above expected-value calculations generate the following predictions. First, as I demonstrate in subsequent analysis, it is clear that Khrushchev was experiencing significant domestic and international losses at the time he made his decision to send missiles to Cuba. This fact in all likelihood generated a low utility value associated with maintaining the policies that led to his current position. He therefore faced strong incentives to try to change the status quo. Nevertheless, if the utility value—low as it may have been—that was associated with the status quo was greater than the sum of the anticipated costs that would be generated by a hostile American response to the placement of offensive missiles in Cuba ~in the form of either deterrent compelled threats or immediate military hostilities! and the anticipated benefits of a successful attempt to change the status quo, theories based on the maximization of expected value would predict that the Soviet leader should not have opted for this policy to alleviate his current predicament. An analogous situation existed for Kennedy after the missiles were discovered
in Cuba. As will be seen, this discovery generated significant international and domestic costs for the president—a fact that made his utility associated with accepting Khrushchev’s challenge quite low. Nevertheless, if this value was greater than the sum of the anticipated benefits associated with having Khrushchev retreat from his gamble as a result of American pressure and the anticipated costs of Khrushchev continuing with his challenge in the face of American threats ~which include the potential costs of war resulting from accident or
miscalculation!, expected-utility theory would predict that Kennedy should have accepted a change in the status quo despite the harm this outcome generated for him.
Finally, there can be no doubt that Khrushchev’s utility generated by capitulating to Kennedy’s threats over the Cuban missiles had a very low value. Yet if the sum of the anticipated benefits of defying Kennedy and ultimately succeeding with the Cuban initiative and the anticipated costs of either Kennedy making good on his threats or war resulting from accident or miscalculation was less than the damage done by capitulation, removing the missiles was a value-
maximizing choice”