Skip to main content
Log in

Stochastic Choice and Consistency in Decision Making Under Risk: An Experimental Study

  • Published:
Theory and Decision Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper reports the results of an experiment designed to uncover the stochastic structure of individual preferences over lotteries. Unlike previous experiments, which have presented subjects with pair-wise choices between lotteries, our design allowed subjects to choose between two lotteries or (virtually) any convex combination of the two lotteries. We interpret the mixtures of lotteries chosen by subjects as a measure of the stochastic structure of choice. We test between two alternative interpretations of stochastic choice: the random utility interpretation and the deterministic preferences interpretation. The main findings of the experiment are that the typical subject prefers mixtures of lotteries rather than the extremes of a linear lottery choice set. The distribution of choices does not change between a first and second asking of the same question. We argue that this provides support for the deterministic preferences interpretation over the random utility interpretation of stochastic choice. As a subsidiary result, we find a small proportion of subjects make choices that violate transitivity, but the level of intransitive choice falls significantly over time.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Barbera, S. and Pattanaik, P.K. (1983), Falmagne and the rationalizability of stochastic choices in terms of random orderings, Econometrica 54: 707–715.

    Google Scholar 

  • Block, H.D. and Marschak, J. (1960), Random orderings and stochastic theories of response, in I. Olkin et al. (eds), Contributions to Probability and Statistics: Essays in Honor of Harold Hotelling, Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, C. (1989), An experimental test of several generalized utility theories, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2(1): 61–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, C. (1995), Individual decision making, in J. Kagel and A. Roth (eds), The Handbook of Experimental Economics, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, C. and Teck-Hua Ho (1994), Violations of the betweenness axiom and nonlinearity in probability, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 8: 167–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falmagne, J.-Cl. (1978), A representation theorem for finite random scale, Journal of Mathematical Psychology 18: 52–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausman, J. and Wise, D. (1978), A conditional probit model for qualitative choice: Discrete decisions recognizing interdependence and heterogeneous preferences, Econometrica 46: 403–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loomes, G., Starmer, C. and Sugden, R. (1991), Observing violations of transitivity by experimental methods, Econometrica 59: 425–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machina, M.J. (1985), Stochastic choice functions generated from deterministic preferences over lotteries, Economic Journal 95: 575–594.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, D. (1974), The measurement of urban travel demand, Journal of Public Economics 3: 303–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sopher, B. and Gigliotti, G. (1993a), Intransitive cycles: Rational choice or random error? An answer based on estimation of error rates with experimental data, Theory and Decision 35: 311–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sopher, B. and Gigliotti, G. (1993b), A test of generalized expected utility theory, Theory and Decision 35: 75–106.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sopher, Narramore Stochastic Choice and Consistency in Decision Making Under Risk: An Experimental Study. Theory and Decision 48, 323–349 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005289611789

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005289611789

Navigation