IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolet/v67y2000i1p29-33.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The certainty effect and boundary effects with transformed probabilities

Author

Listed:
  • Schmidt, Ulrich

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Schmidt, Ulrich, 2000. "The certainty effect and boundary effects with transformed probabilities," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 29-33, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:67:y:2000:i:1:p:29-33
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165-1765(99)00247-5
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Essid, Samir, 1997. "Choice under risk with certainty and potential effects: A general axiomatic model," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 223-247, October.
    2. Itzhak Gilboa, 1988. "A Combination of Expected Utility and Maxmin Decision Criteria," Post-Print hal-00753244, HAL.
    3. Neilson, William S., 1992. "Some mixed results on boundary effects," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 275-278, July.
    4. Harless, David W & Camerer, Colin F, 1994. "The Predictive Utility of Generalized Expected Utility Theories," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(6), pages 1251-1289, November.
    5. Humphrey, Steven J., 1998. "More mixed results on boundary effects," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 79-84, October.
    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. Schneider, Mark, 2020. "Temptation-biased preferences for risk and time," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    2. Platteau, Jean-Philippe & Ugarte Ontiveros, Darwin, 2021. "Cognitive bias in insurance: Evidence from a health scheme in India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    3. Platteau, Jean-Philippe & Ugarte Ontiveros, Darwin, 2017. "Cognitive Bias in Insurance: Evidence from India," CEPR Discussion Papers 12242, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    4. Schneider, Mark, 2020. "A bias aggregation theorem," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).

    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. William S. Neilson, 2000. "Victory and Defeat in a Model of Behavior in Games and Toward Risk," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 0690, Econometric Society.
    2. Ulrich Schmidt, 2001. "Lottery Dependent Utility: a Reexamination," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 35-58, February.
    3. Diecidue, E. & Schmidt, U. & Wakker, P.P., 2000. "A Theory of the Gambling Effect," Discussion Paper 2000-75, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    4. Kai Duttle & Keigo Inukai, 2015. "Complexity Aversion: Influences of Cognitive Abilities, Culture and System of Thought," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 35(2), pages 846-855.
    5. Schmidt, Ulrich & Zimper, Alexander, 2003. "Security and potential level preferences with thresholds," Papers 03-29, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    6. Schmidt, Ulrich & Zimper, Alexander, 2003. "Security And Potential Level Preferences With," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 03-29, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    7. Han Bleichrodt & Ulrich Schmidt, 2002. "A Context-Dependent Model of the Gambling Effect," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(6), pages 802-812, June.
    8. Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2022. "Chance theory: A separation of riskless and risky utility," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 65(1), pages 1-32, August.
    9. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.
    10. repec:cup:judgdm:v:2:y:2007:i::p:115-125 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Alain Chateauneuf & Michèle Cohen & Jean-Marc Tallon, 2008. "Decision under risk : The classical Expected Utility model," Post-Print halshs-00348814, HAL.
    14. James Andreoni & Charles Sprenger, 2011. "Uncertainty Equivalents: Testing the Limits of the Independence Axiom," NBER Working Papers 17342, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. 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.
    16. Groneck, Max & Ludwig, Alexander & Zimper, Alexander, 2024. "Who saves more, the naive or the sophisticated agent?," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 219(C).
    17. Craig Webb, 2015. "Piecewise additivity for non-expected utility," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 60(2), pages 371-392, October.
    18. 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.
    19. James Andreoni & Charles Sprenger, 2010. "Certain and Uncertain Utility: The Allais Paradox and Five Decision Theory Phenomena," Levine's Working Paper Archive 814577000000000447, David K. Levine.
    20. James Andreoni & Charles Sprenger, 2010. "Risk Preferences Are Not Time Preferences: Discounted Expected Utility with a Disproportionate Preference for Certainty," NBER Working Papers 16348, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    21. Ferdinand Vieider, 2016. "Certainty Preference, Random Choice, and Loss Aversion: A Comment on "Violence and Risk Preference: Experimental Evidence from Afghanistan"," Economics Discussion Papers em-dp2016-06, Department of Economics, University of Reading.

    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:eee:ecolet:v:67:y:2000:i:1:p:29-33. 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.

    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.