IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jrisku/v41y2010i1p19-37.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Behavioral assumptions for a class of utility theories: A program of experiments

Author

Listed:
  • R. Luce

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • R. Luce, 2010. "Behavioral assumptions for a class of utility theories: A program of experiments," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 19-37, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jrisku:v:41:y:2010:i:1:p:19-37
    DOI: 10.1007/s11166-010-9098-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11166-010-9098-5
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11166-010-9098-5?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. Birnbaum, Michael H. & Gutierrez, Roman J., 2007. "Testing for intransitivity of preferences predicted by a lexicographic semi-order," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 104(1), pages 96-112, September.
    2. Iverson, G. & Falmagne, J. -C., 1985. "Statistical issues in measurement," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 131-153, October.
    3. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    4. Cho, Young-Hee & Fisher, Gerald R., 2000. "Receiving Two Consequences: Tests of Monotonicity and Scale Invariance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 61-81, September.
    5. Ross, Stephen A, 1981. "Some Stronger Measures of Risk Aversion in the Small and the Large with Applications," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(3), pages 621-638, May.
    6. Birnbaum, Michael H., 1992. "Issues in utility measurement," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 319-330, August.
    7. Cho, Young-Hee & Truong, Lan & Haneda, Miki, 2005. "Testing the indifference between a binary lottery and its edited components using observed estimates of variability," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 97(1), pages 82-89, May.
    8. C. Ng & R. Duncan Luce & A. Marley, 2009. "Utility of Gambling when Events are Valued: an Application of Inset Entropy," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 67(1), pages 23-63, July.
    9. Levy, Haim & Levy, Moshe, 2002. "Arrow-Pratt Risk Aversion, Risk Premium and Decision Weights," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 265-290, November.
    10. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    11. Cho, Young-Hee & Duncan Luce, R. & Truong, Lan, 2002. "Duplex decomposition and general segregation of lotteries of a gain and a loss: An empirical evaluation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 1176-1193, November.
    12. Michel Regenwetter & Clintin P. Davis-Stober, 2008. "There Are Many Models of Transitive Preference: A Tutorial Review and Current Perspective," Springer Optimization and Its Applications, in: Tamar Kugler & J. Cole Smith & Terry Connolly & Young-Jun Son (ed.), Decision Modeling and Behavior in Complex and Uncertain Environments, pages 99-124, Springer.
    13. Birnbaum, Michael H. & Sutton, Sara E., 1992. "Scale convergence and utility measurement," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 183-215, July.
    14. R. Luce, 2010. "Interpersonal comparisons of utility for 2 of 3 types of people," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 5-24, February.
    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. Michele Belot & Marcel Fafchamps, 2012. "Good Samaritans and the Market: Experimental Evidence on Other-Regarding Preferences," Discussion Papers 2012001, University of Oxford, Nuffield College.
    2. Martin Eling & Michael Kochanski, 2013. "Research on lapse in life insurance: what has been done and what needs to be done?," Journal of Risk Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 14(4), pages 392-413, August.
    3. Kontek, Krzysztof & Birnbaum, Michael H., 2019. "The impact of middle outcomes on lottery valuations," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 30-44.
    4. Malul, Miki & Rosenboim, Mosi & Shavit, Tal, 2013. "So when are you loss averse? Testing the S-shaped function in pricing and allocation tasks," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 101-112.
    5. Fafchamps, Marcel & Belot, Michèle, 2015. "Good Samaritans and the Market: Experimental Evidence on Other-Regarding Preferences in Partnership Formation," CEPR Discussion Papers 11017, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

    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. Birnbaum, Michael H. & Chavez, Alfredo, 1997. "Tests of Theories of Decision Making: Violations of Branch Independence and Distribution Independence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 161-194, August.
    2. Birnbaum, Michael H. & Zimmermann, Jacqueline M., 1998. "Buying and Selling Prices of Investments: Configural Weight Model of Interactions Predicts Violations of Joint Independence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 74(2), pages 145-187, May.
    3. Birnbaum, Michael H., 2004. "Tests of rank-dependent utility and cumulative prospect theory in gambles represented by natural frequencies: Effects of format, event framing, and branch splitting," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 40-65, September.
    4. Sebastian Ebert & Daniel Wiesen, 2014. "Joint measurement of risk aversion, prudence, and temperance," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 231-252, June.
    5. Birnbaum, Michael H. & LaCroix, Adam R., 2008. "Dimension integration: Testing models without trade-offs," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 105(1), pages 122-133, January.
    6. Brice Corgnet & Roberto Hernán González, 2023. "On The Appeal Of Complexity," Working Papers 2312, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    7. George Wu & Alex B. Markle, 2008. "An Empirical Test of Gain-Loss Separability in Prospect Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(7), pages 1322-1335, July.
    8. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Alessandra Cillo, 2015. "A Tailor-Made Test of Intransitive Choice," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 63(1), pages 198-211, February.
    9. Nathalie Etchart-Vincent, 2009. "The shape of the utility function under risk in the loss domain and the "ruinous losses" hypothesis: some experimental results," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 29(2), pages 1393-1402.
    10. Malul, Miki & Rosenboim, Mosi & Shavit, Tal, 2013. "So when are you loss averse? Testing the S-shaped function in pricing and allocation tasks," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 101-112.
    11. Robert Gazzale & Julian Jamison & Alexander Karlan & Dean Karlan, 2013. "Ambiguous Solicitation: Ambiguous Prescription," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 51(1), pages 1002-1011, January.
    12. Howard Kunreuther & Erwann Michel-Kerjan, 2015. "Demand for fixed-price multi-year contracts: Experimental evidence from insurance decisions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 171-194, October.
    13. Kazi Iqbal & Asad Islam & John List & Vy Nguyen, 2021. "Myopic Loss Aversion and Investment Decisions: From the Laboratory to the Field," Framed Field Experiments 000730, The Field Experiments Website.
    14. Filiz-Ozbay, Emel & Guryan, Jonathan & Hyndman, Kyle & Kearney, Melissa & Ozbay, Erkut Y., 2015. "Do lottery payments induce savings behavior? Evidence from the lab," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 1-24.
    15. Goytom Abraha Kahsay & Daniel Osberghaus, 2018. "Storm Damage and Risk Preferences: Panel Evidence from Germany," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 301-318, September.
    16. Christian Gollier & James Hammitt & Nicolas Treich, 2013. "Risk and choice: A research saga," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 129-145, October.
    17. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.
    18. John Duffy & Janet Hua Jiang & Huan Xie, 2024. "Pricing Indefinitely Lived Assets: Experimental Evidence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 70(12), pages 8772-8790, December.
    19. Foster, Gigi & Frijters, Paul & Schaffner, Markus & Torgler, Benno, 2018. "Expectation formation in an evolving game of uncertainty: New experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 379-405.
    20. Daniel Woods & Mustafa Abdallah & Saurabh Bagchi & Shreyas Sundaram & Timothy Cason, 2022. "Network defense and behavioral biases: an experimental study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(1), pages 254-286, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Gambles; Joint receipt; p-Additive representation; Risk types; Uncertain alternatives; C91; D46; D81;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D46 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Value Theory
    • 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:kap:jrisku:v:41:y:2010:i:1:p:19-37. 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: 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.