David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Economic Methodology 8 (3):385-414 (2001)
The discovered preference hypothesis appears to insulate expected utility theory (EU) from disconfirming experimental evidence. It asserts that individuals have coherent underlying preferences, which experiments may not reveal unless subjects have adequate opportunities and incentives to discover which actions best satisfy their preferences. We identify the confounding effects to be expected in experiments, were that hypothesis true, and consider how they might be controlled for. We argue for a design in which each subject faces just one distinct choice task for real. We review the results of some tests of EU which have used this design. These tests reveal the same violations of the independence axiom as other studies have found. We conclude that the discovered preference hypothesis does not justify scepticism about the reality of these effects.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|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
Robin Cubitt, Maria Ruiz-Martos & Chris Starmer (2012). Are Bygones Bygones? Theory and Decision 73 (2):185-202.
Adam S. Booij, Bernard M. S. Van Praag & Gijs van de Kuilen (2010). A Parametric Analysis of Prospect Theory's Functionals for the General Population. Theory and Decision 68 (1-2):115-148.
Gijs van de Kuilen (2009). Subjective Probability Weighting and the Discovered Preference Hypothesis. Theory and Decision 67 (1):1-22.
Similar books and articles
David E. Buschena & David Zilberman (1999). Testing the Effects of Similarity on Risky Choice: Implications for Violations of Expected Utility. Theory and Decision 46 (3):253-280.
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.
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.
Lyle Zynda (2000). Representation Theorems and Realism About Degrees of Belief. Philosophy of Science 67 (1):45-69.
Martin Peterson (2004). From Outcomes to Acts: A Non-Standard Axiomatization of the Expected Utility Principle. Journal of Philosophical Logic 33 (4):361-378.
Daniel Read (2009). Experimental Tests of Rationality. In Paul Anand, Prasanta Pattanaik & Clemens Puppe (eds.), The Handbook of Rational and Social Choice. OUP Oxford
Stephen A. Clark (2000). Revealed Preference and Expected Utility. Theory and Decision 49 (2):159-174.
Brent Strickland & Aysu Suben (2012). Experimenter Philosophy: The Problem of Experimenter Bias in Experimental Philosophy. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 3 (3):457-467.
Pradier Pierre-Charles, David Teira & Jallais Sophie (2008). Facts, Norms and Expected Utility Functions. History of the Human Sciences 21 (2):45-62.
Teddy Seidenfeld, Mark Schervish & Joseph Kadane, When Coherent Preferences May Not Preserve Indifference Between Equivalent Random Variables: A Price for Unbounded Utilities.
Wlodek Rabinowicz (2000). Preference Stability and Substitution of Indifferents: A Rejoinder to Seidenfeld. Theory and Decision 48 (4):311-318.
Hans Lottenbach (1994). Expected Utility and Constrained Maximization: Problems of Compatibility. [REVIEW] Erkenntnis 41 (1):37 - 48.
Added to index2012-02-20
Total downloads7 ( #274,000 of 1,699,567 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #362,609 of 1,699,567 )
How can I increase my downloads?