IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolet/v119y2013i1p60-64.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The reverse Allais paradox

Author

Listed:
  • Blavatskyy, Pavlo R.

Abstract

The results of a new experiment show that the Allais paradox (or, more generally, the common consequence effect) gets reversed, i.e. fanning-in choice patterns significantly outnumber fanning-out choice patterns. Revealed indifference curves fan in along the horizontal axis and hypotenuse of the Marschak–Machina probability triangle. No significant asymmetry between fanning-in and fanning-out choice patterns is observed along the vertical axis of the probability triangle.

Suggested Citation

  • Blavatskyy, Pavlo R., 2013. "The reverse Allais paradox," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 119(1), pages 60-64.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:119:y:2013:i:1:p:60-64
    DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2013.01.009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165176513000281
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.econlet.2013.01.009?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. repec:bla:econom:v:65:y:1998:i:260:p:581-98 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Blavatskyy, Pavlo R., 2006. "Violations of betweenness or random errors?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 34-38, April.
    3. Carlin, Paul S., 1990. "Is the Allais paradox robust to a seemingly trivial change of frame?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 241-244, November.
    4. Pavlo R. Blavatskyy, 2010. "Reverse Common Ratio Effect," IEW - Working Papers 478, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    5. Carlin, Paul S., 1992. "Violations of the reduction and independence axioms in Allais-type and common-ratio effect experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 213-235, October.
    6. Steffen Huck & Wieland Müller, 2012. "Allais for all: Revisiting the paradox in a large representative sample," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 261-293, June.
    7. Conlisk, John, 1989. "Three Variants on the Allais Example," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(3), pages 392-407, June.
    8. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2010. "Reverse common ratio effect," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 219-241, June.
    9. Graham Loomes & Robert Sugden, 1998. "Testing Different Stochastic Specificationsof Risky Choice," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 65(260), pages 581-598, November.
    10. 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.
    11. Humphrey, Steven J. & Verschoor, Arjan, 2004. "The probability weighting function: experimental evidence from Uganda, India and Ethiopia," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 84(3), pages 419-425, September.
    12. Camerer, Colin F, 1989. "An Experimental Test of Several Generalized Utility Theories," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 61-104, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Keiran Sharpe, 2023. "On the Ellsberg and Machina paradoxes," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 95(4), pages 539-573, November.
    2. Leo Chi U Seak & Simone Ferrari-Toniolo & Ritesh Jain & Kirby Nielsen & Wolfram Schultz, 2023. "Systematic comparison of risky choices in humans and monkeys," Working Papers 202316, University of Liverpool, Department of Economics.
    3. Blavatskyy, Pavlo, 2018. "Fechner’s strong utility model for choice among n>2 alternatives: Risky lotteries, Savage acts, and intertemporal payoffs," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 75-82.
    4. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Ning Liu & Peter P. Wakker, 2016. "Group decision rules and group rationality under risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 99-116, April.
    5. Pavlo R. Blavatskyy & Francesco Feri, 2018. "Violations of betweenness and choice shifts in groups," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 85(3), pages 321-331, October.
    6. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2018. "Why do young women marry old men?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 85(3), pages 509-525, October.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.

    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. Blavatskyy, Pavlo, 2018. "Fechner’s strong utility model for choice among n>2 alternatives: Risky lotteries, Savage acts, and intertemporal payoffs," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 75-82.
    2. 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.
    3. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.
    4. Ulrich Schmidt & Christian Seidl, 2014. "Reconsidering the common ratio effect: the roles of compound independence, reduction, and coalescing," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(3), pages 323-339, October.
    5. 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.
    6. Michael H. Birnbaum & Ulrich Schmidt & Miriam D. Schneider, 2017. "Testing independence conditions in the presence of errors and splitting effects," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 54(1), pages 61-85, February.
    7. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2007. "Stochastic expected utility theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 259-286, June.
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:2:y:2007:i::p:115-125 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Bethany Weber, 2007. "The effects of losses and event splitting on the Allais paradox," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 2, pages 115-125, April.
    10. Michał Krawczyk, 2014. "Probability weighting in different domains: the role of stakes, fungibility, and affect," Working Papers 2014-15, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    11. 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.
    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. Pavlo R. Blavatskyy, "undated". "A Stochastic Expected Utility Theory," IEW - Working Papers 231, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    14. Florian H. Schneider & Martin Schonger, 2019. "An Experimental Test of the Anscombe–Aumann Monotonicity Axiom," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(4), pages 1667-1677, April.
    15. Glenn Harrison & J. Swarthout, 2014. "Experimental payment protocols and the Bipolar Behaviorist," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(3), pages 423-438, October.
    16. Pavlo R. Blavatskyy, 2010. "Reverse Common Ratio Effect," IEW - Working Papers 478, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    17. A. Nebout & D. Dubois, 2014. "When Allais meets Ulysses: Dynamic axioms and the common ratio effect," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 19-49, February.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Humphrey, Steven J., 2000. "The common consequence effect: testing a unified explanation of recent mixed evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 239-262, March.
    21. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2018. "Why do young women marry old men?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 85(3), pages 509-525, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    The Allais paradox; The common consequence effect; Expected utility theory; Fanning-out; Fanning-in; Betweenness;
    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:ecolet:v:119:y:2013:i:1:p:60-64. 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/ecolet .

    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.