David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Theory and Decision 46 (3):253-280 (1999)
Our aim in this paper was to establish an empirical evaluation for similarity effects modeled by Rubinstein; Azipurua et al.; Leland; and Sileo. These tests are conducted through a sensitivity analysis of two well-known examples of expected utility (EU) independence violations. We found that subjective similarity reported by respondents was explained very well by objective measures suggested in the similarity literature. The empirical results of this analysis also show that: (1) the likelihood of selection for the riskier choice increases as the pair becomes more similar, (2) these choice patterns are consistent with well-known independence violations of expected utility, and (3) a significant proportion of individuals exhibit intransitive choice patterns predicted under similarity effects, but not allowed under generalized expected utility models for risky choice
|Keywords||Discrete choice probit models Expected utility Independence violations Risk|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Robin P. Cubitt, Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden (2001). Discovered Preferences and the Experimental Evidence of Violations of Expected Utility Theory. Journal of Economic Methodology 8 (3):385-414.
Stephen A. Clark (2000). Revealed Preference and Expected Utility. Theory and Decision 49 (2):159-174.
Wlodek Rabinowicz (1995). To Have One's Cake and Eat It, Too: Sequential Choice and Expected-Utility Violations. Journal of Philosophy 92 (11):586-620.
John Quiggin (2001). Production Under Uncertainty and Choice Under Uncertainty in the Emergence of Generalized Expected Utility Theory. Theory and Decision 51 (2/4):125-144.
Reed Richter (1985). Rationality, Group Choice and Expected Utility. Synthese 63 (2):203 - 232.
Ebbe Groes, Hans JØrgen Jacobsen, Birgitte Sloth & Torben Tranæs (1999). Testing the Intransitivity Explanation of the Allais Paradox. Theory and Decision 47 (3):229-245.
Ulrich Schmidt (2001). Lottery Dependent Utility: A Reexamination. Theory and Decision 50 (1):35-58.
Rolf Aaberge (2011). Empirical Rules of Thumb for Choice Under Uncertainty. Theory and Decision 71 (3):431-438.
Bruno Verbeek (2008). Consequentialism and Rational Choice: Lessons From the Allais Paradox. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 89 (1):86–116.
Pradier Pierre-Charles, David Teira & Jallais Sophie (2008). Facts, Norms and Expected Utility Functions. History of the Human Sciences 21 (2):45-62.
Jeffrey Helzner (2009). On the Application of Multiattribute Utility Theory to Models of Choice. Theory and Decision 66 (4):301-315.
Teddy Seidenfeld, Mark J. Schervish & Joseph B. Kadane (2010). Coherent Choice Functions Under Uncertainty. Synthese 172 (1):157 - 176.
Wesley Cooper (2008). Decision-Value Utilitarianism. Polish Journal of Philosophy 2 (2):39-50.
Jack Vromen (2010). On the Surprising Finding That Expected Utility is Literally Computed in the Brain. Journal of Economic Methodology 17 (1):17-36.
Paul Weirich (1984). Interpersonal Utility in Principles of Social Choice. Erkenntnis 21 (3):295 - 317.
Added to index2010-09-02
Total downloads7 ( #265,100 of 1,696,808 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #346,744 of 1,696,808 )
How can I increase my downloads?