IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jeborg/v80y2011i3p511-522.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Imprecision as an account of violations of independence and betweenness

Author

Listed:
  • Butler, David
  • Loomes, Graham

Abstract

In an earlier paper we put forward a model of imprecise preferences which accounted for various forms of preference reversal. In this paper we show that the same model can also explain the best-known violations of expected utility theory's axioms of independence and betweenness. It appears that a simple model of imprecise preferences can account for a broader range of anomalies than many of the more elaborate alternative theories developed to date.

Suggested Citation

  • Butler, David & Loomes, Graham, 2011. "Imprecision as an account of violations of independence and betweenness," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 80(3), pages 511-522.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:80:y:2011:i:3:p:511-522
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2011.05.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268111001284
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jebo.2011.05.008?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nicholas Bardsley & Robin Cubitt & Graham Loomes & Peter Moffatt & Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden, 2009. "Experimental Economics: Rethinking the Rules," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 9074.
    2. Ulrich Schmidt & Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden, 2008. "Third-generation prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 203-223, June.
    3. Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 1982. "Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice under Uncertainty," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(368), pages 805-824, December.
    4. Pavlo Blavatskyy & Wolfgang Köhler, 2009. "Range effects and lottery pricing," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 12(3), pages 332-349, September.
    5. David Buschena & David Zilberman, 1999. "Testing the Effects of Similarity on Risky Choice: Implications for Violations of Expected Utility," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 253-280, June.
    6. Ian Bateman & Brett Day & Graham Loomes & Robert Sugden, 2007. "Can ranking techniques elicit robust values?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 49-66, February.
    7. Loomes, Graham, 2006. "(How) Can we value health, safety and the environment?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 713-736, December.
    8. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639.
    9. David J. Butler & Graham C. Loomes, 2007. "Imprecision as an Account of the Preference Reversal Phenomenon," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(1), pages 277-297, March.
    10. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2009. "Preference reversals and probabilistic decisions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 237-250, December.
    11. Starmer, Chris & Sugden, Robert, 1991. "Does the Random-Lottery Incentive System Elicit True Preferences? An Experimental Investigation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(4), pages 971-978, September.
    12. Chris Starmer, 2000. "Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 332-382, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Graham Loomes & Ganna Pogrebna, 2017. "Do Preference Reversals Disappear When We Allow for Probabilistic Choice?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(1), pages 166-184, January.
    2. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2009. "Preference reversals and probabilistic decisions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 237-250, December.
    3. Ball, Linden J. & Bardsley, Nicholas & Ormerod, Tom, 2012. "Do preference reversals generalise? Results on ambiguity and loss aversion," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 48-57.
    4. Oben K Bayrak & Bengt Kriström, 2016. "Is there a valuation gap? The case of interval valuations," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 36(1), pages 218-236.
    5. Gijs Kuilen & Peter Wakker, 2006. "Learning in the Allais paradox," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 155-164, December.
    6. Kim Kaivanto & Eike Kroll, 2014. "Alternation bias and reduction in St. Petersburg gambles," Working Papers 65600286, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1324-1369 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Zahra Murad & Martin Sefton & Chris Starmer, 2016. "How do risk attitudes affect measured confidence?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 52(1), pages 21-46, February.
    9. Zheng, Jiakun, 2021. "Willingness to pay for reductions in health risks under anticipated regret," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    10. Harin, Alexander, 2014. "Problems of utility and prospect theories. A discontinuity of Prelec’s function," MPRA Paper 61027, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Graham Loomes & Ganna Pogrebna, 2014. "Testing for independence while allowing for probabilistic choice," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 189-211, December.
    12. Isoni, Andrea & Brooks, Peter & Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 2016. "Do markets reveal preferences or shape them?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 1-16.
    13. Raúl López-Pérez & Eli Spiegelman, 2020. "Using Eye-Tracking Techniques To Understand The Role Of Attention On Choice And Reversals," Working Papers 2001, Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP), CSIC.
    14. Serge Blondel & Louis Lévy-garboua, 2011. "Can non-expected utility theories explain the paradox of not voting?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 31(4), pages 3158-3168.
    15. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2018. "A second-generation disappointment aversion theory of decision making under risk," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(1), pages 29-60, January.
    16. Uri Gneezy & John A. List & George Wu, 2006. "The Uncertainty Effect: When a Risky Prospect is Valued Less than its Worst Possible Outcome," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(4), pages 1283-1309.
    17. Sudeep Bhatia & Graham Loomes & Daniel Read, 2021. "Establishing the laws of preferential choice behavior," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(6), pages 1324-1369, November.
    18. Harin, Alexander, 2014. "Problems of utility and prospect theories. A ”certain-uncertain” inconsistency of the random-lottery incentive system," MPRA Paper 55706, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Harin, Alexander, 2023. "To solve old problems of economics. The experimental background," MPRA Paper 117157, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Adrian Bruhin & Maha Manai & Luís Santos-Pinto, 2022. "Risk and rationality: The relative importance of probability weighting and choice set dependence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 65(2), pages 139-184, October.
    21. Shaw, W. Douglass & Woodward, Richard T., 2008. "Why environmental and resource economists should care about non-expected utility models," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 66-89, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Imprecise preferences; Independence; Betweenness; Experiment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:80:y:2011:i:3:p:511-522. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jebo .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.