IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/econom/v59y1992i233p17-33.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are Preferences Monotonic? Testing Some Predictions of Regret Theory

Author

Listed:
  • Loomes, Graham
  • Starmer, Chris
  • Sugden, Robert

Abstract

In this paper, the authors demonstrate that the assumption of "regret aversion," which has been invoked in regret theory to explain several well-documented violations of expected utility theory, also implies the existence of strict preferences between some stochastically equivalent actions and implies certain systematic violations of monotonicity. The authors report an experimental test of these predictions. They find that, while choices between stochastically equivalent actions are entirely consistent with expected utility theory, there is clear evidence of the monotonicity violations predicted by regret theory. Copyright 1992 by The London School of Economics and Political Science.

Suggested Citation

  • Loomes, Graham & Starmer, Chris & Sugden, Robert, 1992. "Are Preferences Monotonic? Testing Some Predictions of Regret Theory," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 59(233), pages 17-33, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:econom:v:59:y:1992:i:233:p:17-33
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0013-0427%28199202%292%3A59%3A233%3C17%3AAPMTSP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-V&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 search for a different version of it.

    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:bla:econom:v:59:y:1992:i:233:p:17-33. 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: Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing or Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.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.