IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/econom/v68y2001i269p77-96.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Non‐transitive Choice: Event‐Splitting Effects or Framing Effects?

Author

Listed:
  • Steven Humphrey

Abstract

Recent studies have examined possible causes of the robust empirical failure of the transitivity axiom of expected utility theory by pitting regret aversion against alternative explanations such as event‐splitting effects. These tests show that cycles replicate when the latter are controlled, but are sensitive to changes in problem representation. The control for event‐splitting effects, however, does not rule out their contribution to cyclical choices in some circumstances. An experiment is reported which investigates this possibility. Cyclical choices are observed that cannot be due to event‐splitting effects, but appear attributable to within‐event and between‐act evaluations of decision problems plus framing effects.

Suggested Citation

  • Steven Humphrey, 2001. "Non‐transitive Choice: Event‐Splitting Effects or Framing Effects?," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 68(269), pages 77-96, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:econom:v:68:y:2001:i:269:p:77-96
    DOI: 10.1111/1468-0335.00234
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0335.00234
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1468-0335.00234?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
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Birnbaum, Michael H. & Gutierrez, Roman J., 2007. "Testing for intransitivity of preferences predicted by a lexicographic semi-order," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 104(1), pages 96-112, September.
    2. Michael H. Birnbaum & Ulrich Schmidt & Miriam D. Schneider, 2017. "Testing independence conditions in the presence of errors and splitting effects," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 54(1), pages 61-85, February.
    3. Ulrich Schmidt & Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden, 2008. "Third-generation prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 203-223, June.
    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. Schmidt, Ulrich & Birnbaum, Michael, 2014. "The Impact of Experience on Violations of Independence and Coalescing," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100463, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    6. Michael Birnbaum & Ulrich Schmidt, 2010. "Testing transitivity in choice under risk," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(4), pages 599-614, October.
    7. Michael Birnbaum & Ulrich Schmidt, 2008. "An experimental investigation of violations of transitivity in choice under uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 77-91, August.
    8. Birnbaum, Michael H. & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2006. "Empirical Tests of Intransitivity Predicted by Models of Risky Choice," Economics Working Papers 2006-10, Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel, Department of Economics.
    9. Amélie Vrijdags, 2010. "An experimental investigation of transitivity in set ranking," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 213-232, February.
    10. Humphrey, Steven J., 2004. "Feedback-conditional regret theory and testing regret-aversion in risky choice," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 839-857, December.
    11. Andreas Glöckner & Baiba Renerte & Ulrich Schmidt, 2020. "Violations of coalescing in parametric utility measurement," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 89(4), pages 471-501, November.
    12. Ulrich Schmidt & Michael Stolpe, 2011. "Transitivity in health utility measurement: An experimental analysis," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 1-4, December.
    13. Birnbaum, Michael H., 2006. "Evidence against prospect theories in gambles with positive, negative, and mixed consequences," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 737-761, December.
    14. 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.
    15. Agnes Cseh & Attila Juhos, 2020. "Pairwise preferences in the stable marriage problem," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 2006, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    16. Mogens Fosgerau & John Rehbeck, 2023. "Nontransitive Preferences and Stochastic Rationalizability: A Behavioral Equivalence," Papers 2304.14631, arXiv.org.

    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:bla:econom:v:68:y:2001:i:269:p:77-96. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.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.