Abstract
This paper uses a two-dimensional version of a standard common consequence experiment to test the intransitivity explanation of Allais-paradox-type violations of expected utility theory. We compare the common consequence effect of two choice problems differing only with respect to whether alternatives are statistically correlated or independent. We framed the experiment so that intransitive preferences could explain violating behavior when alternatives are independent, but not when they are correlated. We found the same pattern of violation in the two cases. This is evidence against intransitivity as an explanation of the Allais Paradox. The question whether violations of expected utility are mainly due to intransitivity or to violation of independence is important since it is exactly on this issue the main new decision theories differ.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Allais, M. (1953), Le comportement de l'homme rationel devant le risque: critique des postulates et axiomes de l'ecole americaine, Econometrica21:503–546.
Battalio, R., Kagel, J.H. and Kiranyakul, K. (1990), Testing between alternative models of choice under uncertainty: some initial results, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty3:25–50.
Camerer, C.F. (1989), An experimental test of several generalized utility theories, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty2:61–104.
Conlisk, J. (1989), Three variants on the Allais example, The American Economic Review79:392–407.
Fishburn, P.C. (1983), Transitive measurable utility, Journal of Economic Theory31:293–317.
Fishburn, P.C. (1989), Non-transitive measurable utility for decision under uncertainty, Journal of Mathematical Economics18:187–207.
Gilboa, I. (1987), Expected utility with purely subjective non-additive probabilities, Journal of Mathematical Economics16:65–88.
Holt, C.A. (1986), Preference reveral and the independence axiom, American Economic Review76:508–515.
Hey, J.D. (1991), Experiments in Economics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979), Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk, Econometrica47:263–91.
Kagel, J.H. and Roth, A., (eds). (1995), The Handbook of Experimental Economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Loomes, G.C. and Sugden, R. (1982), Regret theory: an alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty, Economic Journal92:805–824.
von Neumann, J. and Morgenstern, O. (1947), Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Quiggin, J. (1982), A theory of anticipated utility, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization3:323–343.
Sarin, R. and Wakker, P.P. (1992), A simple axiomatization of non-additive expected utility, Econometrica60:1255–1272.
Savage, L.J. (1954), The Foundations of Statistics. New York: JohnWiley & Sons.
Schmeidler, D. (1989), Subjective probability and expected utility without additivity, Econometrica57:571–587.
Starmer, C. (1992), Testing new theories of choice under uncertainty using he common consequence effect, Review of Economic Studies59:813–830.
Starmer, C. and Sugden, R. (1991), Does the random-lottery incentive system elicit true preferences? An experimental investigation, American Economic Review81:971–978.
Sugden, R. (1993), An axiomatic foundation of regret theory, Journal of Economic Theory60:159–180.
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1992), Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty5:297–323.
Wakker, P.P. (1989), Continuous subjective expected utility with non-additive probabilities, Journal of Mathematical Economics18:1–27.
Vind, K. (1991a), Independent preferences, Journal of Mathematical Economics20:119–135.
Vind, K. (1991b), Uncertainty (manuscript, University of Copenhagen).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Groes, E., Jacobsen, H.J., Sloth, B. et al. Testing the Intransitivity Explanation of the Allais Paradox. Theory and Decision 47, 229–245 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005177230444
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005177230444