IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aecrev/v80y1990i4p912-21.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Tests of "Fanning Out" of Indifference Curves: Results from Animal and Human Experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Kagel, John H
  • MacDonald, Don N
  • Battalio, Raymond C

Abstract

In an earlier paper (Raymond C. Battalio, John H. Kagel, and Don N. Mac Donald, 1985), we reported Allais-type violations of the independence axiom of expected utility theory with rats choosing over positively valued payoffs (food rewards). This note extends this research, examining animals' choices over losses, testing for (1) standard Allais-type common ratio effect violations of expected utility theory and (2) fanning out of indifference curves for random prospects, tests of Mark J. Machina's (1982, 1987) hypothesis II (hereafter H2), over previously unexplored areas of the unit probability triangle. Results from a parallel series of experiments using human subjects choosing over real losses are also reported. For both rats and people, we find standard Allais-type violations of expected utility theory and a systematic failure of the fanning out hypothesis in the southeast corner of the unit probability triangle, in the case of losses. Thus, the fanning out hypothesis (Machina 1982, 1987) cannot provide a satisfactory explanation for behavioral deviations from expected utility theory.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Kagel, John H & MacDonald, Don N & Battalio, Raymond C, 1990. "Tests of "Fanning Out" of Indifference Curves: Results from Animal and Human Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(4), pages 912-921, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:aea:aecrev:v:80:y:1990:i:4:p:912-21
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8282%28199009%2980%3A4%3C912%3ATO%22OOI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M&origin=repec
    File Function: full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to JSTOR subscribers. See http://www.jstor.org for details.
    ---><---

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

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. D. A. Peel & Jie Zhang & D. Law, 2008. "The Markowitz model of utility supplemented with a small degree of probability distortion as an explanation of outcomes of Allais experiments over large and small payoffs and gambling on unlikely outc," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(1), pages 17-26.
    2. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2004. "Axiomatization of a Preference for Most Probably Winner," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp226, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.
    3. Glenn W. Harrison & John A. List, 2004. "Field Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1009-1055, December.
    4. Thomas Epper & Helga Fehr-Duda, 2012. "The missing link: unifying risk taking and time discounting," ECON - Working Papers 096, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Oct 2018.
    5. M. Keith Chen & Venkat Lakshminarayanan & Laurie R. Santos, 2006. "How Basic Are Behavioral Biases? Evidence from Capuchin Monkey Trading Behavior," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 114(3), pages 517-537, June.
    6. Y. Alarie & G. Dionne, 2001. "Optimal Cognitive Processes for Lotteries," THEMA Working Papers 2001-07, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    7. William Harbaugh & Kate Krause & Lise Vesterlund, 2002. "Risk Attitudes of Children and Adults: Choices Over Small and Large Probability Gains and Losses," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(1), pages 53-84, June.
    8. Simone Ferrari-Toniolo & Leo Chi U. Seak & Wolfram Schultz, 2022. "Risky choice: Probability weighting explains independence axiom violations in monkeys," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 65(3), pages 319-351, December.
    9. Pavlo R. Blavatskyy, "undated". "Axiomatization of a Preference for Most Probable Winner," IEW - Working Papers 230, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    10. Fan, Chinn-Ping, 2002. "Allais paradox in the small," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 411-421, November.
    11. Chris Starmer, 1992. "Testing New Theories of Choice under Uncertainty using the Common Consequence Effect," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 59(4), pages 813-830.
    12. Bruno S. Frey, "undated". "Knight Fever towards an Economics of Awards," IEW - Working Papers 239, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    13. Epper, Thomas & Fehr-Duda, Helga, 2017. "A Tale of Two Tails: On the Coexistence of Overweighting and Underweighting of Rare Extreme Events," Economics Working Paper Series 1705, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.
    14. Raymond Dacey, 1998. "Risk Attitude, Punishment, and the Intifada," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 16(1), pages 77-88, February.
    15. William S. Neilson, 1993. "An Expected Utility-User's Guide to Nonexpected Utility Experiments," Eastern Economic Journal, Eastern Economic Association, vol. 19(3), pages 257-274, Summer.
    16. Kontek, Krzysztof, 2015. "Fanning-Out or Fanning-In? Continuous or Discontinuous? Estimating Indifference Curves Inside the Marschak-Machina Triangle using Certainty Equivalents," MPRA Paper 63965, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. M. Keith Chen & Venkat Lakshminarayanan & Laurie Santos, 2005. "The Evolution of Our Preferences: Evidence from Capuchin-Monkey Trading Behavior," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1524, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    18. Pavlo Blavatskyy & Valentyn Panchenko & Andreas Ortmann, 2023. "How common is the common-ratio effect?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(2), pages 253-272, April.
    19. E. Elisabet Rutstrom & Glenn W. Harrison & Morten I. Lau, 2004. "Estimating Risk Attitudes in Denmark," Econometric Society 2004 Australasian Meetings 201, Econometric Society.

    More about this item

    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:aea:aecrev:v:80:y:1990:i:4:p:912-21. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Michael P. Albert (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aeaaaea.html .

    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.