IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jomega/v13y1985i4p349-358.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing of the 'reduction of compound alternatives' principle

Author

Listed:
  • Keller, L Robin

Abstract

This paper reports an empirical investigation of the effects of three pictorial forms of problem representation on conformance with the Reduction of Compound Alternatives Principle of expected utility theory. The most common form of representation, written problem statements, was compared with three pictorial representations: tubes containing one hundred labeled balls, decision matrices with each column proportional in size to the probability of the corresponding event, and bar graphs. The tubes representation led to fewer violations of the Principle. In addition, when subjects were trained to construct proportional matrices from written problem statements, they exhibited fewer violations than those who received the same problems already formatted in proportional matrices. The results reported here should contribute to the development of a theory of the way people frame decision problems.

Suggested Citation

  • Keller, L Robin, 1985. "Testing of the 'reduction of compound alternatives' principle," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 349-358.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:13:y:1985:i:4:p:349-358
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0305-0483(85)90031-3
    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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Adam Oliver, 2003. "Testing rank‐dependent utility theory for health outcomes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(10), pages 863-871, October.
    2. Amélie Vrijdags, 2010. "An experimental investigation of transitivity in set ranking," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 213-232, February.
    3. Bikhchandani, Sushil & Segal, Uzi & Sharma, Sunil, 1992. "Stochastic dominance under Bayesian learning," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 352-377, April.
    4. Adrian Bruhin & Maha Manai & Luís Santos-Pinto, 2022. "Risk and rationality: The relative importance of probability weighting and choice set dependence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 65(2), pages 139-184, October.
    5. Kaivanto, Kim & Kroll, Eike B., 2012. "Negative recency, randomization device choice, and reduction of compound lotteries," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 263-267.
    6. Kim Kaivanto & Eike Kroll, 2014. "Alternation bias and reduction in St. Petersburg gambles," Working Papers 65600286, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    7. Saurabh Bansal & Yaroslav Rosokha, 2018. "Impact of Compound and Reduced Specification on Valuation of Projects with Multiple Risks," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 15(1), pages 27-46, March.

    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:jomega:v:13:y:1985:i:4:p:349-358. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/375/description#description .

    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.