IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jrisku/v5y1992i2p159-74.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Different Frames for the Independence Axiom: An Experimental Investigation in Individual Decision Making under Risk

Author

Listed:
  • Bernasconi, Michele

Abstract

This article classifies three classes of generalized.expected utility preferences according to the justifications for the independence axiom and for the reduction principle that they subscribe to or reject. The results of an experiment designed to test the three classes show that some substantial proportions of responses are consistent with each class. In view of this finding, it is suggested that the different theories belonging to the three classes should be considered complementary, rather than alternative, in order to explain individual behavior under risk. Copyright 1992 by Kluwer Academic Publishers

Suggested Citation

  • Bernasconi, Michele, 1992. "Different Frames for the Independence Axiom: An Experimental Investigation in Individual Decision Making under Risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(2), pages 159-174, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jrisku:v:5:y:1992:i:2:p:159-74
    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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Segal, Uzi, 1990. "Two-Stage Lotteries without the Reduction Axiom," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 58(2), pages 349-377, March.
    2. Chew, Soo Hong, 1983. "A Generalization of the Quasilinear Mean with Applications to the Measurement of Income Inequality and Decision Theory Resolving the Allais Paradox," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 51(4), pages 1065-1092, July.
    3. Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 1982. "Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice under Uncertainty," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(368), pages 805-824, December.
    4. Conlisk, John, 1989. "Three Variants on the Allais Example," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(3), pages 392-407, June.
    5. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    6. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 1987. "Some implications of a more general form of regret theory," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 270-287, April.
    8. Fishburn, Peter C, 1987. "Reconsiderations in the Foundations of Decision under Uncertainty," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 97(388), pages 825-841, December.
    9. David E. Bell, 1982. "Regret in Decision Making under Uncertainty," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(5), pages 961-981, October.
    10. Sugden, Robert, 1986. "New Developments in the Theory of Choice under Uncertainty," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(1), pages 1-24, January.
    11. Machina, Mark J, 1987. "Choice under Uncertainty: Problems Solved and Unsolved," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 1(1), pages 121-154, Summer.
    12. Camerer, Colin F, 1989. "An Experimental Test of Several Generalized Utility Theories," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 61-104, April.
    13. Battalio, Raymond C & Kagel, John H & Jiranyakul, Komain, 1990. "Testing between Alternative Models of Choice under Uncertainty: Some Initial Results," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 25-50, March.
    14. Dekel, Eddie, 1986. "An axiomatic characterization of preferences under uncertainty: Weakening the independence axiom," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 304-318, December.
    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. Ali Ahmed & Göran Skogh, 2006. "Choices at various levels of uncertainty: An experimental test of the restated diversification theorem," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 183-196, December.
    2. Bernasconi, Michele & Bernhofer, Juliana, 2020. "Catch Me If You Can: Testing the reduction of compound lotteries axiom in a tax compliance experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    3. Hajimoladarvish, Narges, 2018. "How do people reduce compound lotteries?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 126-133.

    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. Marc Willinger, 1990. "La rénovation des fondements de l'utilité et du risque," Revue Économique, Programme National Persée, vol. 41(1), pages 5-48.
    2. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.
    3. 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.
    4. Zvi Safra & Uzi Segal, 2005. "Are Universal Preferences Possible? Calibration Results for Non-Expected Utility Theories," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 633, Boston College Department of Economics.
    5. Buschena, David & Zilberman, David, 1992. "Not Just Another Paper Showing Violations of the Expected Utility Model: The Effects of Alternative Similarity on Risky Choice," CUDARE Working Papers 198603, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    6. Buschena, David E. & Zilberman, David, 1992. "Similarity of Choices and the Performance of the Expected Utility Approach: Empirical Results," 1992 Quantifying Long Run Agricultural Risks and Evaluating Farmer Responses to Risk Meeting, March 22-25, 1992, Orlando, Florida 307868, Regional Research Projects > S-232: Quantifying Long Run Agricultural Risks and Evaluating Farmer Responses to Risk.
    7. 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.
    8. Han Bleichrodt & Peter P. Wakker, 2015. "Regret Theory: A Bold Alternative to the Alternatives," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 0(583), pages 493-532, March.
    9. Belianin, A., 2017. "Face to Face to Human Being: Achievements and Challenges of Behavioral Economics," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 34(2), pages 166-175.
    10. Herweg, Fabian & Müller, Daniel, 2021. "A comparison of regret theory and salience theory for decisions under risk," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    11. Marshall, Robert C & Richard, Jean-Francois & Zarkin, Gary A, 1992. "Posterior Probabilities of the Independence Axiom with Nonexperimental Data (or Buckle Up and Fan Out)," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 10(1), pages 31-44, January.
    12. Chris Starmer, 2000. "Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 332-382, June.
    13. Karni, Edi & Maccheroni, Fabio & Marinacci, Massimo, 2015. "Ambiguity and Nonexpected Utility," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications,, Elsevier.
    14. Raquel M. Gaspar & Paulo M. Silva, 2023. "Investors’ perspective on portfolio insurance," Portuguese Economic Journal, Springer;Instituto Superior de Economia e Gestao, vol. 22(1), pages 49-79, January.
    15. Aluma Dembo & Shachar Kariv & Matthew Polisson & John Quah, 2021. "Ever since Allais," IFS Working Papers W21/15, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    16. Trabelsi, Mohamed Ali, 2006. "Les nouveaux modèles de décision dans le risque et l’incertain : quel apport ? [The new models of decision under risk or uncertainty : What approach?]," MPRA Paper 25442, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. 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.
    18. John Hey, "undated". "Experiments and the Economics of Individual Decision Making Under Risk and Uncertainty," Discussion Papers 95/49, Department of Economics, University of York.
    19. Harless, David W, 1992. "Actions versus Prospects: The Effect of Problem Representation on Regret," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(3), pages 634-649, June.
    20. Ebbe Groes & Hans Jacobsen & Birgitte Sloth & Torben Tranæs, 1999. "Testing the Intransitivity Explanation of the Allais Paradox," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 229-245, December.

    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:5:y:1992:i:2:p:159-74. 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.