IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ecorec/v90y2014ip1-15.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the Measurement of Strength of Preference in Units of Money

Author

Listed:
  • David Butler
  • Andrea Isoni
  • Graham Loomes
  • Daniel Navarro-Martinez

Abstract

type="main" xml:id="ecor12113-abs-0001"> We report an experimental study that aims to elicit monetary measures of strength of preference in choices involving pairs of risky prospects. Despite extensive testing to refine the instruments used, we find that these money measures are systematically biased upwards relative to subsequent binary choices. We discuss possible reasons for this bias and its broader implications.

Suggested Citation

  • David Butler & Andrea Isoni & Graham Loomes & Daniel Navarro-Martinez, 2014. "On the Measurement of Strength of Preference in Units of Money," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 90, pages 1-15, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:ecorec:v:90:y:2014:i::p:1-15
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/ecor.2014.90.issue-s1
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Michał Jakubczyk & Dominik Golicki, 2020. "Elicitation and modelling of imprecise utility of health states," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 88(1), pages 51-71, February.
    2. Nakamura, Yutaka, 2015. "State-dependent strength-of-preference," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 64-68.
    3. David Butler & Andrea Isoni & Graham Loomes & Kei Tsutsui, 2014. "Beyond choice: investigating the sensitivity and validity of measures of strength of preference," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 17(4), pages 537-563, December.
    4. Georgios Gerasimou, 2019. "Simple Preference Intensity Comparisons," Discussion Paper Series, School of Economics and Finance 201905, School of Economics and Finance, University of St Andrews, revised 27 Apr 2020.
    5. Daniel Navarro-Martinez & Graham Loomes & Andrea Isoni & David Butler & Larbi Alaoui, 2018. "Boundedly rational expected utility theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 57(3), pages 199-223, December.
    6. Liu Shi & Jianying Qiu & Jiangyan Li & Frank Bohn, 2024. "Consciously stochastic in preference reversals," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 68(3), pages 255-297, June.

    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:ecorec:v:90:y:2014:i::p:1-15. 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 Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/esausea.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.