Evaluation of similarity models for expected utility violations
A body of work proposes a decision cost argument to explain expected utility (EU) violations based on pair similarity. These similarity models suggest various measures over the risky pairs that define decision costs and benefits. This paper assesses the empirical modeling success of these similarity measures in explaining risky choice patterns showing EU independence violations. We also compare model fit for these similarity models relative to EU and to a selected generalized EU model. Although the candidate models exhibit some degree of substitutability, our results indicate support for models that use relatively simple measures as instruments for similarity.
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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1979.
"Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
7656, David K. Levine.
- Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-91, March.
- 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.
- Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
- John Conlisk, 1996. "Why Bounded Rationality?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 34(2), pages 669-700, June.
- Harrison, Glenn W, 1994. "Expected Utility Theory and the Experimentalists," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 223-53.
- Ballinger, T Parker & Wilcox, Nathaniel T, 1997. "Decisions, Error and Heterogeneity," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 107(443), pages 1090-1105, July.
- 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.
- David Buschena & David Zilberman, 2008. "Generalized expected utility, heteroscedastic error, and path dependence in risky choice," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 201-201, April.
- Paul V. Preckel, 2001. "Least Squares and Entropy: A Penalty Function Perspective," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(2), pages 366-377.
- Golan, Amos & Judge, George G. & Miller, Douglas, 1996. "Maximum Entropy Econometrics," Staff General Research Papers Archive 1488, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
- Rubinstein, Ariel, 1988. "Similarity and decision-making under risk (is there a utility theory resolution to the Allais paradox?)," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 145-153, October.
- Wilcox, Nathaniel T, 1993. "Lottery Choice: Incentives, Complexity and Decision Time," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 103(421), pages 1397-1417, November.
- Hey, John D & Orme, Chris, 1994. "Investigating Generalizations of Expected Utility Theory Using Experimental Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(6), pages 1291-1326, November.
- Hey, John D., 1995. "Experimental investigations of errors in decision making under risk," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 39(3-4), pages 633-640, April.
- John Leland, 2010.
"Generalized Similarity Judgments: An Alternative Explanation for Choice Anomalies,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
7644, David K. Levine.
- Leland, Jonathan W, 1994. "Generalized Similarity Judgments: An Alternative Explanation for Choice Anomalies," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 151-72, October.
- Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 1998. "Testing Different Stochastic Specifications of Risky Choice," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 65(260), pages 581-98, November.
- Buschena, David & Zilberman, David, 1995. "Performance of the Similarity Hypothesis Relative to Existing Models of Risky Choice," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 233-62, December.
- Mellers, Barbara A. & Ordonez, Lisa D. & Birnbaum, Michael H., 1992. "A change-of-process theory for contextual effects and preference reversals in risky decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 331-369, August.
- Jacob Marschak, 1959. "Remarks on the Economics of Information," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 70, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
- 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.
- Peter Moffatt, 2005. "Stochastic Choice and the Allocation of Cognitive Effort," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 8(4), pages 369-388, December.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:econom:v:162:y:2011:i:1:p:105-113. 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: (Shamier, Wendy)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.