Allais Paradoxes Can be Reversed by Presenting Choices in Canonical Split Form
AbstractThis paper tests Birnbaum’s (2004) theory that the constant consequence paradoxes of Allais are due to violations of coalescing, the assumption that when two branches lead to the same consequence, they can be combined by adding their probabilities. Rank dependent utility and cumulative prospect theory imply that the Allais paradoxes are due to violations of restricted branch independence, a weaker form of Savage’s sure thing axiom. This paper will analyze separately whether erroneous random response variation might be responsible for these two effects. When errors are factored out, violations of restricted branch independence also remain significant and opposite from the direction of Allais paradoxes, suggesting that models such as CPT that attribute Allais paradoxes to violations of restricted branch independence should be rejected
Download InfoIf 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.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Kiel Institute for the World Economy in its series Kiel Working Papers with number 1615.
Length: 28 pages
Date of creation: Mar 2010
Date of revision:
Independence axiom; splitting effects; coalescing; errors; experiment;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
- D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2010-04-17 (All new papers)
- NEP-EXP-2010-04-17 (Experimental Economics)
- NEP-UPT-2010-04-17 (Utility Models & Prospect Theory)
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2010.
"Salience and consumer choice,"
Economics Working Papers
1252, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised May 2012.
- Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2012. "Salience and Consumer Choice," Working Papers 463, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
- Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2012. "Salience and Consumer Choice," NBER Working Papers 17947, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, . "Salience and Consumer Choice," Working Paper 62321, Harvard University OpenScholar.
- Pedro Bordado & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2012. "Salience and Consumer Choice," Working Papers 501, Barcelona Graduate School of Economics.
- Andrei Shleifer & Nicola Gennaioli & Pedro Bordalo, 2011.
"Salience theory of choice under risk,"
2011 Meeting Papers
1442, Society for Economic Dynamics.
- Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2010. "Salience Theory of Choice Under Risk," NBER Working Papers 16387, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, . "Salience Theory of Choice Under Risk," Working Paper 29210, Harvard University OpenScholar.
- Shleifer, Andrei & Bordalo, Pedro & Gennaioli, Nicola, 2012. "Salience Theory of Choice Under Risk," Scholarly Articles 10636303, Harvard University Department of Economics.
- James C. Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj & Ulrich Schmidt, 2011.
"Paradoxes and Mechanisms for Choice under Risk,"
Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series
2011-07, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University, revised Mar 2014.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dieter Stribny).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.