IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolet/v171y2018icp128-132.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is utility maximization compromised by acute intoxication with THC or MDMA?

Author

Listed:
  • Bedi, Gillinder
  • Burghart, Daniel R.

Abstract

This report presents results from a within-subject, randomized, placebo-controlled experiment in which healthy participants were orally administered delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC; 10mg/70kg), the main psychoactive component of cannabis, 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA; 1.5mg/70kg), the main psychoactive component of ‘ecstasy’ and ‘molly’, and placebo across three sessions. While intoxicated, participants chose between monetary payment and social time, defined as access to their phone and pre-specified social internet sites like Facebook. The design of the experiment made possible an assessment of the acute effects of THC and MDMA on adherence to the generalized axiom of revealed preference (GARP), a necessary and sufficient condition for maximization of a well-behaved utility function. Choices made under the influence of THC, MDMA, and placebo were all GARP compliant. Thus, even when participants were acutely intoxicated with THC or MDMA, their choices remained consistent with the tenets of neoclassical choice theory.

Suggested Citation

  • Bedi, Gillinder & Burghart, Daniel R., 2018. "Is utility maximization compromised by acute intoxication with THC or MDMA?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 128-132.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:171:y:2018:i:c:p:128-132
    DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2018.06.021
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165176518302441
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.econlet.2018.06.021?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. Varian, Hal R, 1982. "The Nonparametric Approach to Demand Analysis," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(4), pages 945-973, July.
    2. Gross, John, 1995. "Testing Data for Consistency with Revealed Preference," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 77(4), pages 701-710, November.
    3. Daniel Burghart & Paul Glimcher & Stephanie Lazzaro, 2013. "An expected utility maximizer walks into a bar..," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 215-246, June.
    4. William T. Harbaugh & Kate Krause & Timothy R. Berry, 2001. "GARP for Kids: On the Development of Rational Choice Behavior," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1539-1545, December.
    5. Stephanie C Lazzaro & Robb B Rutledge & Daniel R Burghart & Paul W Glimcher, 2016. "The Impact of Menstrual Cycle Phase on Economic Choice and Rationality," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-15, January.
    6. Afriat, S N, 1973. "On a System of Inequalities in Demand Analysis: An Extension of the Classical Method," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 14(2), pages 460-472, 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. De Rock, Bram & Cherchye, Laurens & Chiappori, Pierre-André & Ringdal, Charlotte & Vermeulen, Frederic, 2021. "Feed the children," CEPR Discussion Papers 16482, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. Aluma Dembo & Shachar Kariv & Matthew Polisson & John Quah, 2021. "Ever since Allais," IFS Working Papers W21/15, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    3. Laurens Cherchye & Sam Cosaert & Thomas Demuynck & Bram De Rock, 2020. "Group Consumption with Caring Individuals," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 130(627), pages 587-622.
    4. Sam Cosaert & Thomas Demuynck, 2015. "Revealed preference theory for finite choice sets," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 59(1), pages 169-200, May.
    5. Javier A. Birchenall, 2024. "Random choice and market demand," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 57(1), pages 165-198, February.
    6. E. Cettolin & P. S. Dalton & W. J. Kop & W. Zhang, 2020. "Cortisol meets GARP: the effect of stress on economic rationality," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(2), pages 554-574, June.
    7. Jan Heufer & Per Hjertstrand, 2015. "Homothetic Efficiency and Test Power: A Non-Parametric Approach," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 15-064/I, Tinbergen Institute.
    8. Per Hjertstrand & James Swofford, 2014. "Are the choices of people stochastically rational? A stochastic test of the number of revealed preference violations," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 46(4), pages 1495-1519, June.
    9. Brocas, Isabelle & Carrillo, Juan D. & Combs, T. Dalton & Kodaverdian, Niree, 2019. "Consistency in simple vs. complex choices by younger and older adults," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 580-601.
    10. James Andreoni & William Harbaugh, 2005. "Power Indicies for Revealed Preference Tests," Levine's Bibliography 784828000000000181, UCLA Department of Economics.
    11. Dziewulski, Paweł, 2020. "Just-noticeable difference as a behavioural foundation of the critical cost-efficiency index," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    12. Castillo, Marco & Freer, Mikhail, 2018. "Revealed differences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 202-217.
    13. Yoram Halevy & Dotan Persitz & Lanny Zrill, 2018. "Parametric Recoverability of Preferences," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 126(4), pages 1558-1593.
    14. Daniel R. Burghart, 2020. "The two faces of independence: betweenness and homotheticity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 88(4), pages 567-593, May.
    15. Wang, Jian & Iversen, Tor & Hennig-Schmidt, Heike & Godager, Geir, 2020. "Are patient-regarding preferences stable? Evidence from a laboratory experiment with physicians and medical students from different countries," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    16. Brocas, Isabelle & Carrillo, Juan D. & Combs, T. Dalton & Kodaverdian, Niree, 2019. "The development of consistent decision-making across economic domains," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 217-240.
    17. Stephen L. Cheung & Agnieszka Tymula & Xueting Wang, 2022. "Present bias for monetary and dietary rewards," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(4), pages 1202-1233, September.
    18. Ian Crawford, 2004. "Necessary and sufficient conditions for latent separability," CeMMAP working papers CWP02/04, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    19. Cherchye, L.J.H. & Demuynck, T. & de Rock, B., 2009. "Degrees of Cooperation in Household Consumption Models : A Revealed Preference Analysis," Other publications TiSEM 097597d5-7724-4d31-b044-e, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    20. Cosaert, Sam & Lefebvre, Mathieu & Martin, Ludivine, 2022. "Are preferences for work reference dependent or time nonseparable? New experimental evidence," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Rationality; Utility maximization; GARP; THC; MDMA;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D01 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments

    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:171:y:2018:i:c:p:128-132. 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.