Performance of the Similarity Hypothesis Relative to Existing Models of Risky Choice
AbstractExperimental studies have discovered behavior that is inconsistent with the expected utility model (EU) of risky choice (von Neumann and Morgenstern, 1953). The two approaches to address these paradoxes are tested: generalized expected utility models (GEU) and models incorporating decision-making limits or costs through question similarity. Tests are carried out over risky pairs related to well-known examples from Kahneman and Tversky's (1979) influential work. Statistical analysis reveals that GEU models of choice are significantly violated for choice patterns consistent with the similarity hypothesis. Additional tests point to shortcomings in the similarity approach that are consistent with fanning out behavior. Copyright 1995 by Kluwer Academic Publishers
Download InfoTo our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Springer in its journal Journal of Risk and Uncertainty.
Volume (Year): 11 (1995)
Issue (Month): 3 (December)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=100299
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Colin Camerer, 1998. "Bounded Rationality in Individual Decision Making," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 163-183, September.
- Guerdjikova, Ani, 2008. "Case-based learning with different similarity functions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 107-132, May.
- David Buschena & David Zilberman, 2000. "Generalized Expected Utility, Heteroscedastic Error, and Path Dependence in Risky Choice," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 67-88, January.
- Geiger, Gebhard, 2002. "On the statistical foundations of non-linear utility theory: The case of status quo-dependent preferences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 136(2), pages 449-465, January.
- Buschena, David E. & Atwood, Joseph A., 2011. "Evaluation of similarity models for expected utility violations," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 162(1), pages 105-113, May.
- Butler, D. J., 2000. "Do non-expected utility choice patterns spring from hazy preferences? An experimental study of choice 'errors'," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 277-297, March.
- 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.
- Jonathan W. Leland, 2006. "Equilibrium Selection, Similarity Judgments and the“Nothing to Gain/Nothing to Lose”Effect," Levine's Working Paper Archive 321307000000000378, David K. Levine.
- Konstantinos Katsikopoulos & Gerd Gigerenzer, 2008. "One-reason decision-making: Modeling violations of expected utility theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 35-56, August.
- Guerdjikova, Ani, 2006. "Portfolio Choice and Asset Prices in an Economy Populated by Case-Based Decision Makers," Working Papers 06-13, Cornell University, Center for Analytic Economics.
- David Buschena & David Zilberman, 1999. "Testing the Effects of Similarity on Risky Choice: Implications for Violations of Expected Utility," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 253-280, June.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Guenther Eichhorn) or (Christopher F. Baum).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.