IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ajk/ajkdps/326.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Axiom Preferences and Choice Mistakes under Risk

Author

Listed:
  • Fabian Herweg

    (University of Bayreuth)

  • Svenja Hippel

    (University of Bonn)

  • Daniel Müller

    (University of Würzburg)

  • Fabio Römeis

    (University of Würzburg)

Abstract

We investigate whether violations of canonical axioms of choice under risk are mistakes or a manifestation of true preferences. First, we elicit axiom and gamble preferences and then allow subjects to revise their potentially conflicting preferences. Among the behavioral patterns that allow for a clear-cut interpretation on the decision level, we find that roughly 70% of axiom violations are intentional whereas only 30% are mistakes. On the subject level we can clearly categorize almost half of our subjects. Among those, roughly 24% are rational expected utility maximizers, 24% make occasional mistakes, and 52% refute the normative value of these axioms.

Suggested Citation

  • Fabian Herweg & Svenja Hippel & Daniel Müller & Fabio Römeis, 2024. "Axiom Preferences and Choice Mistakes under Risk," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 326, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:ajk:ajkdps:326
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econtribute.de/RePEc/ajk/ajkdps/ECONtribute_326_2024.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2024
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gijs Kuilen, 2009. "Subjective Probability Weighting and the Discovered Preference Hypothesis," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 67(1), pages 1-22, July.
    2. Giacomo Lanzani, 2022. "Correlation Made Simple: Applications to Salience and Regret Theory [“Regret in Decision Making under Uncertainty,”]," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 137(2), pages 959-987.
    3. Castillo, Geoffrey, 2020. "The attraction effect and its explanations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 123-147.
    4. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
    5. 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.
    6. Simon, Herbert A., 1985. "Human Nature in Politics: The Dialogue of Psychology with Political Science," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 79(2), pages 293-304, June.
    7. Loomes, Graham & Starmer, Chris & Sugden, Robert, 1989. "Preference Reversal: Information-Processing Effect or Rational Non-transitive Choice?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(395), pages 140-151, Supplemen.
    8. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2012. "Salience Theory of Choice Under Risk," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 127(3), pages 1243-1285.
    9. 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.
    10. repec:bla:econom:v:55:y:1988:i:217:p:47-62 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:1:p:99-113 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. 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.
    13. Druckman, James N., 2001. "Evaluating framing effects," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 91-101, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Fabian Herweg & Svenja Hippel & Daniel Müller & Fabio Römeis, 2024. "Axiom Preferences and Choice Mistakes under Risk," CESifo Working Paper Series 11166, CESifo.
    2. Mark Schneider & Mikhael Shor, 2016. "The Common Ratio Effect in Choice, Pricing, and Happiness Tasks," Working papers 2016-29, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
    3. 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).
    4. Adrian Bruhin & Maha Manai & Luís Santos-Pinto, 2022. "Risk and rationality: The relative importance of probability weighting and choice set dependence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 65(2), pages 139-184, October.
    5. 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.
    6. Ostermair, Christoph, 2022. "An experimental investigation of the Allais paradox with subjective probabilities and correlated outcomes," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    7. Daniel J. Benjamin & Mark Alan Fontana & Miles Kimball, 2020. "Reconsidering Risk Aversion," GRU Working Paper Series GRU_2020_026, City University of Hong Kong, Department of Economics and Finance, Global Research Unit.
    8. Mark Schneider & Jonathan W. Leland, 2021. "Salience and social choice," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(4), pages 1215-1241, December.
    9. Jonathan W. Leland & Mark Schneider, 2016. "Salience, Framing, and Decisions under Risk, Uncertainty, and Time," Working Papers 16-08, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    10. Kobi Kriesler & Shmuel Nitzan, 2009. "Framing-based Choice: A Model of Decision-making Under Risk," Korean Economic Review, Korean Economic Association, vol. 25, pages 65-89.
    11. Luigi Mittone & Mauro Papi, 2020. "Inducing alternative-based and characteristic-based search procedures in risky choice," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(3), pages 371-380, May.
    12. Cathleen Johnson & Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Zhihua Li & Dennie Dolder & Peter P. Wakker, 2021. "Prince: An improved method for measuring incentivized preferences," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 62(1), pages 1-28, February.
    13. Razen, Michael & Kirchler, Michael & Weitzel, Utz, 2020. "Domain-specific risk-taking among finance professionals," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 27(C).
    14. Matthew Rabin & Georg Weizsacker, 2009. "Narrow Bracketing and Dominated Choices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(4), pages 1508-1543, September.
    15. Enrico Diecidue & Haim Levy & Moshe Levy, 2020. "Probability Dominance," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 102(5), pages 1006-1020, December.
    16. Königsheim, C. & Lukas, M. & Nöth, M., 2019. "Salience theory: Calibration and heterogeneity in probability distortion," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 477-495.
    17. Jonathan W. Leland & Mark Schneider & Nathaniel Wilcox, 2017. "Minimal Frames and Transparent Frames for Risk, Time, and Uncertainty," Working Papers 17-15, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    18. Schneider, Mark & Coulter, Robin A., 2015. "A Dual Process Evaluability Framework for decision anomalies," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 183-198.
    19. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:3:p:371-380 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Zhuo Chen & Russell Golman & Jason Somerville, 2024. "Menu-dependent risk attitudes: Theory and evidence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 77-105, February.
    21. Buchanan, Joy A., 2020. "My reference point, not yours," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 297-311.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Axiomatic rationality; Choice under risk; Context-dependent preferences; Mistakes; Regret theory;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D01 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ajk:ajkdps:326. 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: ECONtribute Office (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.econtribute.de .

    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.