IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/theord/v92y2022i3d10.1007_s11238-022-09876-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Debiasing or regularisation? Two interpretations of the concept of ‘true preference’ in behavioural economics

Author

Listed:
  • Robert Sugden

    (University of East Anglia)

Abstract

I reconsider Bleichrodt, Pinto Prades and Wakker’s (BPW) 2001 paper about eliciting utility measures from stated preference surveys. That paper pioneers a method that is now widely used in behavioural economics to correct individuals’ ‘biases’ and to recover their ‘true preferences’. However, BPW propose this method as way of dealing with inconsistent responses to stated preference surveys, in contrast to more recent applications which aim to help individuals to avoid supposed mistakes in their private choices. I argue that the concepts of true preference and bias are empirically ungrounded, but that BPW’s approach can be interpreted as not invoking those concepts. By ‘regularising’ preferences revealed in actual choice, this approach constructs measures of individual welfare that are broadly aligned with actual preferences and consistent with normative standards of rationality that are appropriate for public decision-making. Public decision-makers’ normative judgements are made explicit, rather than being disguised as apparently empirical claims about true preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert Sugden, 2022. "Debiasing or regularisation? Two interpretations of the concept of ‘true preference’ in behavioural economics," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(3), pages 765-784, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:theord:v:92:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s11238-022-09876-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s11238-022-09876-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11238-022-09876-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11238-022-09876-x?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.

    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:theord:v:92:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s11238-022-09876-x. 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.