IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jrisku/v6y1993i2p161-64.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing between Alternative Models of Choice under Uncertainty: Comment

Author

Listed:
  • Quiggin, John

Abstract

Battaglio, Kagel, and Jiranyakul use experimental tests to compare rank-dependent expected utility (RDEU), regret theory, prospect theory, and Machina's generalized smooth preferences model. They conclude that none of these models consistently organizes the data. The purpose of this note is to point out that RDEU theory was tested in combination with a hypothesis on the choice of functional form that has been explicitly rejected by the original author of the model (Quiggin, 1982, 1987). When the original form of RDEU theory is tested, it performs quite well. Copyright 1993 by Kluwer Academic Publishers

Suggested Citation

  • Quiggin, John, 1993. "Testing between Alternative Models of Choice under Uncertainty: Comment," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 6(2), pages 161-164, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jrisku:v:6:y:1993:i:2:p:161-64
    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. Hong, Chew Soo & Karni, Edi & Safra, Zvi, 1987. "Risk aversion in the theory of expected utility with rank dependent probabilities," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 370-381, August.
    2. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    3. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. Yuan-Sheng Lee & Hsu-Shih Shih, 2016. "Incremental analysis for generalized TODIM," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 24(4), pages 901-922, December.
    3. D. A. Peel & Jie Zhang & D. Law, 2008. "The Markowitz model of utility supplemented with a small degree of probability distortion as an explanation of outcomes of Allais experiments over large and small payoffs and gambling on unlikely outc," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(1), pages 17-26.
    4. Giorgio Consigli & Asmerilda Hitaj & Elisa Mastrogiacomo, 2019. "Portfolio choice under cumulative prospect theory: sensitivity analysis and an empirical study," Computational Management Science, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 129-154, February.
    5. Lu Zhang & Yuxin Yang & Xiaofeng Li, 2023. "Research on the Relationship between Agricultural Insurance Participation and Chemical Input in Grain Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-15, February.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Peter Brooks & Simon Peters & Horst Zank, 2014. "Risk behavior for gain, loss, and mixed prospects," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(2), pages 153-182, August.
    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. 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.
    6. Shaw, W. Douglass & Woodward, Richard T., 2008. "Why environmental and resource economists should care about non-expected utility models," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 66-89, January.
    7. 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 76954, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.
    9. Courtault, Jean-Michel & Gayant, Jean-Pascal, 1998. "Local risk aversion in the rank dependent expected utility model: First order versus second order effects," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 59(2), pages 207-212, May.
    10. Michèle Cohen & Isaac Meilijson, 2011. "In search of a characterization of the preference for safety under the Choquet model," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 11031, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    11. Chiu, W. Henry, 2019. "Comparative statics in an ordinal theory of choice under risk," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 113-123.
    12. Chateauneuf, Alain & Cohen, Michele & Meilijson, Isaac, 2004. "Four notions of mean-preserving increase in risk, risk attitudes and applications to the rank-dependent expected utility model," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(5), pages 547-571, August.
    13. Vadym Lepetyuk & Christian A. Stoltenberg, 2012. "Reconciling consumption inequality with income inequality," Working Papers. Serie AD 2012-19, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    14. Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2008. "Risk Aversion in Cumulative Prospect Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(1), pages 208-216, January.
    15. Strzalecki, Tomasz & Werner, Jan, 2011. "Efficient allocations under ambiguity," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 146(3), pages 1173-1194, May.
    16. George Wu, 1999. "Anxiety and Decision Making with Delayed Resolution of Uncertainty," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 159-199, April.
    17. Gul, Faruk & Pesendorfer, Wolfgang, 2015. "Hurwicz expected utility and subjective sources," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 159(PA), pages 465-488.
    18. Laurie Bréban & André Lapidus, 2019. "Adam Smith on lotteries: an interpretation and formal restatement," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1), pages 157-197, January.
    19. Maier, Johannes & Rüger, Maximilian, 2010. "Measuring Risk Aversion Model-Independently," Discussion Papers in Economics 11873, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    20. Michèle Cohen, 2008. "Risk Perception, Risk Attitude and Decision : a Rank-Dependent Approach," Post-Print halshs-00348810, HAL.

    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:6:y:1993:i:2:p:161-64. 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.