IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_11166.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Axiom Preferences and Choice Mistakes under Risk

Author

Listed:
  • Fabian Herweg
  • Svenja Hippel
  • Daniel Müller
  • Fabio Römeis

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 viola-tions 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," CESifo Working Paper Series 11166, CESifo.
    • Handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_11166
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cesifo.org/DocDL/cesifo1_wp11166.pdf
    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. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Nicky Nicholls & Aylit Romm & Alexander Zimper, 2015. "The impact of statistical learning on violations of the sure-thing principle," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 97-115, April.
    9. 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.
    10. Druckman, James N., 2001. "Evaluating framing effects," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 91-101, February.
    11. Nicky Nicholls & Aylit Romm & Alexander Zimper, 2015. "Erratum to: The impact of statistical learning on violations of the sure-thing principle," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 117-117, April.
    12. Chris Starmer, 1992. "Testing New Theories of Choice under Uncertainty using the Common Consequence Effect," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 59(4), pages 813-830.
    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," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 326, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    2. Daniel J. Benjamin & Mark Alan Fontana & Miles S. Kimball, 2020. "Reconsidering Risk Aversion," NBER Working Papers 28007, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. 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.
    4. Michael H. Birnbaum & Ulrich Schmidt, 2015. "The Impact of Learning by Thought on Violations of Independence and Coalescing," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 144-152.
    5. Walter, Johannes & Biermann, Jan & Horton, John, 2024. "Advised by an Algorithm: Learning with Different Informational Resources," VfS Annual Conference 2024 (Berlin): Upcoming Labor Market Challenges 302407, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    6. Esponda, Ignacio & Vespa, Emanuel, 2023. "Contingent Thinking and the Sure-Thing Principle: Revisiting Classic Anomalies in the Laboratory#," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt32j4d5z2, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
    7. Giarlotta, Alfio & Petralia, Angelo & Watson, Stephen, 2023. "Context-sensitive rationality: Choice by salience," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    8. Matthew P. Taylor, 2017. "Information Acquisition Under Risky Conditions Across Real And Hypothetical Settings," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(1), pages 352-367, January.
    9. Blavatskyy, Pavlo R., 2006. "Violations of betweenness or random errors?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 34-38, April.
    10. Schwaiger, Rene & Kirchler, Michael & Lindner, Florian & Weitzel, Utz, 2020. "Determinants of investor expectations and satisfaction. A study with financial professionals," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    11. 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.
    12. Bruno S. Frey, "undated". "Knight Fever towards an Economics of Awards," IEW - Working Papers 239, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    13. Enrico Diecidue & Haim Levy & Moshe Levy, 2020. "Probability Dominance," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 102(5), pages 1006-1020, December.
    14. 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.
    15. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Johannes Buckenmaier, 2021. "Cognitive sophistication and deliberation times," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(2), pages 558-592, June.
    16. Matthew Rabin & Georg Weizsacker, 2009. "Narrow Bracketing and Dominated Choices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(4), pages 1508-1543, September.
    17. Pavlo R. Blavatskyy, "undated". "A Stochastic Expected Utility Theory," IEW - Working Papers 231, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    18. Robin Cubitt & Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden, 1998. "On the Validity of the Random Lottery Incentive System," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(2), pages 115-131, September.
    19. Roxane Bricet, 2018. "The price for instrumentally valuable information," THEMA Working Papers 2018-10, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    20. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Ning Liu & Peter P. Wakker, 2016. "Group decision rules and group rationality under risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 99-116, April.

    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:ces:ceswps:_11166. 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: Klaus Wohlrabe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesifde.html .

    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.