IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jrisku/v11y1995i3p233-62.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Performance of the Similarity Hypothesis Relative to Existing Models of Risky Choice

Author

Listed:
  • Buschena, David
  • Zilberman, David

Abstract

Experimental studies have discovered behavior that is inconsistent with the expected utility model (EU) of risky choice (von Neumann and Morgenstern, 1953). The two approaches to address these paradoxes are tested: generalized expected utility models (GEU) and models incorporating decision-making limits or costs through question similarity. Tests are carried out over risky pairs related to well-known examples from Kahneman and Tversky's (1979) influential work. Statistical analysis reveals that GEU models of choice are significantly violated for choice patterns consistent with the similarity hypothesis. Additional tests point to shortcomings in the similarity approach that are consistent with fanning out behavior. Copyright 1995 by Kluwer Academic Publishers

Suggested Citation

  • Buschena, David & Zilberman, David, 1995. "Performance of the Similarity Hypothesis Relative to Existing Models of Risky Choice," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 233-262, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jrisku:v:11:y:1995:i:3:p:233-62
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. David Buschena & David Zilberman, 1999. "Testing the Effects of Similarity on Risky Choice: Implications for Violations of Expected Utility," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 253-280, June.
    2. Colin Camerer, 1998. "Bounded Rationality in Individual Decision Making," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(2), pages 163-183, September.
    3. Geiger, Gebhard, 2002. "On the statistical foundations of non-linear utility theory: The case of status quo-dependent preferences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 136(2), pages 449-465, January.
    4. Buschena, David E. & Atwood, Joseph A., 2011. "Evaluation of similarity models for expected utility violations," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 162(1), pages 105-113, May.
    5. Jonathan W. Leland, 2006. "Equilibrium Selection, Similarity Judgments and the "Nothing to Gain/Nothing to Lose" Effect," CEEL Working Papers 0604, Cognitive and Experimental Economics Laboratory, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.
    6. David Buschena & David Zilberman, 2008. "Generalized expected utility, heteroscedastic error, and path dependence in risky choice," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 201-201, April.
    7. Buschena, David E. & Zilberman, David & Feldman, Paul J., 2024. "Deliberation and Differences Determine Difficult Decisions," 2024 Annual Meeting, July 28-30, New Orleans, LA 344042, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Guerdjikova, Ani, 2006. "Portfolio Choice and Asset Prices in an Economy Populated by Case-Based Decision Makers," Working Papers 06-13, Cornell University, Center for Analytic Economics.
    9. Konstantinos Katsikopoulos & Gerd Gigerenzer, 2008. "One-reason decision-making: Modeling violations of expected utility theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 35-56, August.
    10. Butler, D. J., 2000. "Do non-expected utility choice patterns spring from hazy preferences? An experimental study of choice 'errors'," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 277-297, March.
    11. Guerdjikova, Ani, 2008. "Case-based learning with different similarity functions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 107-132, May.
    12. Guerdjikova, Ani, 2004. "Preference for diversification with similarity considerations," Papers 04-48, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.

    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:kap:jrisku:v:11:y:1995:i:3:p:233-62. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.