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)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Discovered Preferences and the Experimental Evidence of Violations of Expected Utility Theory.Robin P. Cubitt, Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden - 2001 - Journal of Economic Methodology 8 (3):385-414.
Revealed Preference and Expected Utility.Stephen A. Clark - 2000 - Theory and Decision 49 (2):159-174.
To Have One's Cake and Eat It, Too: Sequential Choice and Expected-Utility Violations.Wlodek Rabinowicz - 1995 - Journal of Philosophy 92 (11):586-620.
Production Under Uncertainty and Choice Under Uncertainty in the Emergence of Generalized Expected Utility Theory.John Quiggin - 2001 - Theory and Decision 51 (2/4):125-144.
Testing the Intransitivity Explanation of the Allais Paradox.Ebbe Groes, Hans JØrgen Jacobsen, Birgitte Sloth & Torben Tranæs - 1999 - Theory and Decision 47 (3):229-245.
Lottery Dependent Utility: A Reexamination.Ulrich Schmidt - 2001 - Theory and Decision 50 (1):35-58.
Empirical Rules of Thumb for Choice Under Uncertainty.Rolf Aaberge - 2011 - Theory and Decision 71 (3):431-438.
Consequentialism and Rational Choice: Lessons From the Allais Paradox.Bruno Verbeek - 2008 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 89 (1):86–116.
Facts, Norms and Expected Utility Functions.Pierre-Charles Pradier, Teira David & Sophie Jallais - 2008 - History of the Human Sciences 21 (2):45-62.
On the Application of Multiattribute Utility Theory to Models of Choice.Jeffrey Helzner - 2009 - Theory and Decision 66 (4):301-315.
Coherent Choice Functions Under Uncertainty.Teddy Seidenfeld, Mark J. Schervish & Joseph B. Kadane - 2009 - Synthese 172 (1):157 - 176.
On the Surprising Finding That Expected Utility is Literally Computed in the Brain.Jack Vromen - 2010 - Journal of Economic Methodology 17 (1):17-36.
Interpersonal Utility in Principles of Social Choice.Paul Weirich - 1984 - Erkenntnis 21 (3):295 - 317.
Added to index2010-09-02
Total downloads45 ( #114,924 of 2,164,552 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #347,995 of 2,164,552 )
How can I increase my downloads?