Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Similarity Judgments in Choice Under Uncertainty: A Reinterpretation of the Predictions of Regret Theory

Contents:

Author Info

  • Jonathan W. Leland

    (National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 995, Arlington, Virginia 22230)

Abstract

The Regret theory of Loomes and Sugden (1982) predicts choice anomalies implied by other alternatives to expected utility (e.g., violations of the independence axiom). It also makes unique and controversial predictions regarding the rational violation of stochastic dominance and invariance. All these predictions depend critically on assumptions regarding the statistical independence or dependence of the available alternatives. None of the predictions depend on the framing or representation of the alternatives. Leland (1994) shows that a model of choice based on similarity judgments predicts choices implied by Regret theory. In contrast to Regret theory, however, these predictions depend critically on the way the choices are framed and not on the dependence or independence of the alternatives. This paper presents experimental results indicating that the frequencies with which violations of independence, dominance, and invariance occur are, in most cases, insensitive to the statistical dependence or independence of the alternatives but sensitive to the way the choices are presented. These findings support the hypothesis that such behaviors arise as a consequence of reliance upon similarity judgments.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.44.5.659
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Article provided by INFORMS in its journal Management Science.

Volume (Year): 44 (1998)
Issue (Month): 5 (May)
Pages: 659-672

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:44:y:1998:i:5:p:659-672

Contact details of provider:
Postal: 7240 Parkway Drive, Suite 300, Hanover, MD 21076 USA
Phone: +1-443-757-3500
Fax: 443-757-3515
Email:
Web page: http://www.informs.org/
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: Decision Making; Similarity Judgments; Regret Theory; Choice Theory;

References

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

Citations

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

Cited by:
  1. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Alessandra Cillo, 2013. "A Tailor-Made Test of Intransitive Choice," Working Papers 496, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
  2. Jonathan W. Leland, 2006. "Equilibrium Selection, Similarity Judgments and the "Nothing to Gain/Nothing to Lose" Effect," CEEL Working Papers 0604, Cognitive and Experimental Economics Laboratory, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.
  3. Di Caprio, Debora & Santos-Arteaga, Francisco J., 2011. "Cardinal versus ordinal criteria in choice under risk with disconnected utility ranges," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(4-5), pages 588-594.
  4. 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.
  5. Uri Gneezy & John List & George Wu, 2006. "The uncertainty effect: When a risky prospect is valued less than its worst possible outcome," Framed Field Experiments 00152, The Field Experiments Website.
  6. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Luis Pinto-Prades, 2006. "A New Type of Preference Reversal," Working Papers 06.18, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Economics.
  7. Sibilla Di Guida & Giovanna Devetag, 2013. "Feature-Based Choice and Similarity Perception in Normal-Form Games: An Experimental Study," Games, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 4(4), pages 776-794, December.
  8. Rosella Castellano & Roy Cerqueti, 2013. "Roots and effects of financial misperception in a stochastic dominance framework," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(6), pages 3371-3389, October.
  9. Leland, Jonathan W. & Grafman, Jordan, 2005. "Experimental tests of the Somatic Marker hypothesis," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 386-409, August.
  10. 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.
  11. Chris Starmer, 2000. "Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 332-382, June.
  12. Michael H. Birnbaum, 2008. "New tests of cumulative prospect theory and the priority heuristic: Probability-outcome tradeoff with branch splitting," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3, pages 304-316, April.
  13. 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.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:44:y:1998:i:5:p:659-672. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mirko Janc).

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.