IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aecrev/v79y1989i3p408-26.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Preference Reversals without the Independence Axiom

Author

Listed:
  • Cox, James C
  • Epstein, Seth

Abstract

The preference reversal phenomenon was believed to be inconsistent with the transitivity axiom of decision theory. However, recent theoretical papers have demonstrated that the preference reversals that were observed in earlier experiments could be explained by subject violations of the independence axiom or the compound lottery axiom. Therefore, those preference reversals are not known to be inconsistent with generalization of expected utility theory that replace the independence axiom. The present paper reports the results of experiments in which a substantial proportion of subject responses violate the asymmetry axiom. These results are inconsistent with expected utility theory and its generalizations. Copyright 1989 by American Economic Association.

Suggested Citation

  • Cox, James C & Epstein, Seth, 1989. "Preference Reversals without the Independence Axiom," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(3), pages 408-426, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:aea:aecrev:v:79:y:1989:i:3:p:408-26
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8282%28198906%2979%3A3%3C408%3APRWTIA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G&origin=repec
    File Function: full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to JSTOR subscribers. See http://www.jstor.org for details.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Vera Angelova & Olivier Armantier & Giuseppe Attanasi & Yolande Hiriart, 2014. "Relative performance of liability rules: experimental evidence," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(4), pages 531-556, December.
    2. Cox, James C., 2010. "Some issues of methods, theories, and experimental designs," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 24-28, January.
    3. Yoram Amiel & Frank Cowell & Liema Davidovitz & Avraham Polovin, 2008. "Preference reversals and the analysis of income distributions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 30(2), pages 305-330, February.
    4. Harin, Alexander, 2023. "To solve old problems of economics. The experimental background," MPRA Paper 117157, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. James Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj & Ulrich Schmidt, 2015. "Paradoxes and mechanisms for choice under risk," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(2), pages 215-250, June.
    6. Guido Baltussen & G. Post & Martijn Assem & Peter Wakker, 2012. "Random incentive systems in a dynamic choice experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(3), pages 418-443, September.
    7. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2013. "Salience and Consumer Choice," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(5), pages 803-843.
    8. Peter Bohm & Hans Lind, 1993. "Preference reversal, real-world lotteries, and lottery-interested subjects," Framed Field Experiments 00131, The Field Experiments Website.
    9. Freeman, David & Manzini, Paola & Mariotti, Marco & Mittone, Luigi, 2016. "Procedures for eliciting time preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 126(PA), pages 235-242.
    10. Wilcox, Nathaniel T, 1993. "Lottery Choice: Incentives, Complexity and Decision Time," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 103(421), pages 1397-1417, November.
    11. Adrian Bruhin & Maha Manai & Luís Santos-Pinto, 2022. "Risk and rationality: The relative importance of probability weighting and choice set dependence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 65(2), pages 139-184, October.
    12. Shogren, Jason F., 2006. "Experimental Methods and Valuation," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 19, pages 969-1027, Elsevier.
    13. Masatlioglu, Yusufcan & Ok, Efe A., 2005. "Rational choice with status quo bias," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 121(1), pages 1-29, March.
    14. Guo, Liang, 2021. "Contextual deliberation and the choice-valuation preference reversal," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    15. Matthew Rabin, 1998. "Psychology and Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 36(1), pages 11-46, March.
    16. Berg, Joyce E. & Dickhaut, John W. & Rietz, Thomas A., 2010. "Preference reversals: The impact of truth-revealing monetary incentives," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 443-468, March.
    17. Dickinson, David L, 1999. "An Experimental Examination of Labor Supply and Work Intensities," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 17(4), pages 638-670, October.
    18. Kent Grote & Victor Matheson, 2011. "The Economics of Lotteries: An Annotated Bibliography," Working Papers 1110, College of the Holy Cross, Department of Economics.
    19. Tsang, Ming, 2020. "Estimating uncertainty aversion using the source method in stylized tasks with varying degrees of uncertainty," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    20. William S. Neilson, 1993. "An Expected Utility-User's Guide to Nonexpected Utility Experiments," Eastern Economic Journal, Eastern Economic Association, vol. 19(3), pages 257-274, Summer.
    21. Tsang, Ming, 2022. "Risk perception in an endogenous information environment," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(4), pages 355-372.
    22. Pechtl, Hans, 2004. "Das Preiswissen von Konsumenten: eine theoretisch-konzeptionelle Analyse," Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Diskussionspapiere 01/2004, University of Greifswald, Faculty of Law and Economics.
    23. Roth, Timothy P., 1997. "Competence-difficulty gaps, ethics and the new social welfare theory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 533-552.
    24. Ian Bateman & Brett Day & Graham Loomes & Robert Sugden, 2007. "Can ranking techniques elicit robust values?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 49-66, February.

    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:aea:aecrev:v:79:y:1989:i:3:p:408-26. 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: Michael P. Albert (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aeaaaea.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.