IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ecj/econjl/v117y2007i518p470-485.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing expected utility in the presence of errors

Author

Listed:
  • Ulrich Schmidt
  • Tibor Neugebauer

Abstract

One possible conclusion from recent experimental research on decision making under risk is that observed behaviour can be reasonably accommodated by expected utility plus an error term. This conclusion implies that the violation rate of expected utility should decrease if errors are excluded. This article reports on an experiment which investigates this implication by presenting the same choice problems to subjects three times. The results show that the exclusion of errors leads to a significant reduction of the violation rate for most of the cases. This observation can be regarded as supporting evidence for expected utility plus error term. Copyright 2007 The Author(s). Journal compilation Royal Economic Society 2007.

Suggested Citation

  • Ulrich Schmidt & Tibor Neugebauer, 2007. "Testing expected utility in the presence of errors," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 117(518), pages 470-485, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:ecj:econjl:v:117:y:2007:i:518:p:470-485
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below 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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. von Gaudecker, H.M. & van Soest, A.H.O. & Wengstrom, E., 2008. "Selection and Mode Effects in Risk Preference Elicitation Experiments," Discussion Paper 2008-11, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    2. Birnbaum, Michael H. & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2010. "Allais paradoxes can be reversed by presenting choices in canonical split form," Kiel Working Papers 1615, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    3. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2012. "Probabilistic choice and stochastic dominance," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 50(1), pages 59-83, May.
    4. 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.
    5. Martin G. Kocher & Julius Pahlke & Stefan T. Trautmann, 2013. "Tempus Fugit : Time Pressure in Risky Decisions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(10), pages 2380-2391, October.
    6. Binmore, Ken & Shaked, Avner, 2010. "Experimental economics: Where next?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 87-100, January.
    7. Matthew Ryan, 2015. "Binary Choice Probabilities on Mixture Sets," Working Papers 2015-01, Auckland University of Technology, Department of Economics.
    8. Gijs Kuilen & Peter Wakker, 2006. "Learning in the Allais paradox," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 155-164, December.
    9. Hans-Martin Gaudecker & Arthur Soest & Erik Wengström, 2012. "Experts in experiments," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 159-190, October.
    10. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2014. "Stronger utility," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 76(2), pages 265-286, February.
    11. Matthew Ryan, 2018. "Uncertainty and binary stochastic choice," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 65(3), pages 629-662, May.
    12. Pavlo Blavatskyy & Valentyn Panchenko & Andreas Ortmann, 2023. "How common is the common-ratio effect?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(2), pages 253-272, April.
    13. Aurora García-Gallego & Nikolaos Georgantzís & Daniel Navarro-Martínez & Gerardo Sabater-Grande, 2011. "The stochastic component in choice and regression to the mean," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(2), pages 251-267, August.

    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:ecj:econjl:v:117:y:2007:i:518:p:470-485. 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-Blackwell Digital Licensing or Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/resssea.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.