IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/gamebe/v52y2005i2p386-409.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Experimental tests of the Somatic Marker hypothesis

Author

Listed:
  • Leland, Jonathan W.
  • Grafman, Jordan

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Leland, Jonathan W. & Grafman, Jordan, 2005. "Experimental tests of the Somatic Marker hypothesis," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 386-409, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:gamebe:v:52:y:2005:i:2:p:386-409
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899-8256(04)00127-7
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Harry Markowitz, 1952. "The Utility of Wealth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 60, pages 151-151.
    2. Rustichini, Aldo & Dickhaut, John & Ghirardato, Paolo & Smith, Kip & Pardo, Jose V., 2005. "A brain imaging study of the choice procedure," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 257-282, August.
    3. Thaler, Richard H, 1988. "The Ultimatum Game," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 2(4), pages 195-206, Fall.
    4. Leland, Jonathan W, 1994. "Generalized Similarity Judgments: An Alternative Explanation for Choice Anomalies," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 151-172, October.
    5. Gretchen B. Chapman & Arthur S. Elstein, 1995. "Valuing the Future," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 15(4), pages 373-386, October.
    6. Eckel, Catherine C. & Grossman, Philip J., 1996. "Altruism in Anonymous Dictator Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 181-191, October.
    7. Machina, Mark J, 1982. ""Expected Utility" Analysis without the Independence Axiom," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(2), pages 277-323, March.
    8. Raghunathan, Rajagopal & Pham, Michel Tuan, 1999. "All Negative Moods Are Not Equal: Motivational Influences of Anxiety and Sadness on Decision Making, , , , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 79(1), pages 56-77, July.
    9. Jonathan W. Leland, 1998. "Similarity Judgments in Choice Under Uncertainty: A Reinterpretation of the Predictions of Regret Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(5), pages 659-672, May.
    10. Milton Friedman & L. J. Savage, 1948. "The Utility Analysis of Choices Involving Risk," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56, pages 279-279.
    11. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Sacha Bourgeois-Gironde, 2009. "Regret and the rationality of choices," Post-Print ijn_00432308, HAL.
    2. Friedman, Dan & Sunder, Shyam, 2011. "Risky Curves: From Unobservable Utility to Observable Opportunity Sets," Santa Cruz Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt36q158jt, Department of Economics, UC Santa Cruz.
    3. Baba Shiv & Antoine Bechara & Irwin Levin & Joseph Alba & James Bettman & Laurette Dube & Alice Isen & Barbara Mellers & Ale Smidts & Susan Grant & A. Mcgraw, 2005. "Decision Neuroscience," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 375-386, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1324-1369 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Sudeep Bhatia & Graham Loomes & Daniel Read, 2021. "Establishing the laws of preferential choice behavior," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(6), pages 1324-1369, November.
    3. Michael Birnbaum & Ulrich Schmidt, 2008. "An experimental investigation of violations of transitivity in choice under uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 77-91, August.
    4. Han Bleichrodt & Peter P. Wakker, 2015. "Regret Theory: A Bold Alternative to the Alternatives," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 0(583), pages 493-532, March.
    5. 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.
    6. Coelho, Philip R. P. & McClure, James E., 1998. "Social context and the utility of wealth: Addressing the Markowitz challenge," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 305-314, November.
    7. Königsheim, C. & Lukas, M. & Nöth, M., 2019. "Salience theory: Calibration and heterogeneity in probability distortion," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 477-495.
    8. Leland, Jonathan W. & Schneider, Mark, 2018. "A theory of focal points in 2 × 2 games," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 75-89.
    9. Machina, Mark J., 1985. "Generalized Expected Utility Analysis And The Nature Of Observed Violations Of The Independence Axiom," Regional Research Projects > 1985: S-180 Annual Meeting, March 24-27, 1985, Charleston, South Carolina 271790, Regional Research Projects > S-180: An Economic Analysis of Risk Management Strategies for Agricultural Production Firms.
    10. Pavlo R. Blavatskyy, "undated". "A Stochastic Expected Utility Theory," IEW - Working Papers 231, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    11. Alexis DIRER, 2010. "Equilibrium Lottery Games and Preferences Under Risk," LEO Working Papers / DR LEO 550, Orleans Economics Laboratory / Laboratoire d'Economie d'Orleans (LEO), University of Orleans.
    12. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2007. "Stochastic expected utility theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 259-286, June.
    13. Andreas Ortmann & Leonidas Spiliopoulos, 2017. "The beauty of simplicity? (Simple) heuristics and the opportunities yet to be realized," Chapters, in: Morris Altman (ed.), Handbook of Behavioural Economics and Smart Decision-Making, chapter 7, pages 119-136, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. W. Wong & R. Chan, 2008. "Prospect and Markowitz stochastic dominance," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 105-129, January.
    15. Lisa L. Posey & Vickie Bajtelsmit, 2017. "Insurance and Endogenous Bankruptcy Risk: When is it Rational to Choose Gambling, Insurance, and Potential Bankruptcy?," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 42(1), pages 15-40, March.
    16. Jonathan W. Leland & Mark Schneider, 2016. "Salience, Framing, and Decisions under Risk, Uncertainty, and Time," Working Papers 16-08, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    17. Sergio Ortobelli & Svetlozar Rachev & Haim Shalit & Frank Fabozzi, 2009. "Orderings and Probability Functionals Consistent with Preferences," Applied Mathematical Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(1), pages 81-102.
    18. Jianping Yang & Chaoqun Zhao & Weiru Chen & Diwei Zhou & Shuguang Han, 2022. "Fraction-Degree Reference Dependent Stochastic Dominance," Methodology and Computing in Applied Probability, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 1193-1219, June.
    19. Charles-Cadogan, G., 2016. "Expected utility theory and inner and outer measures of loss aversion," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 10-20.
    20. David B. BROWN & Enrico G. DE GIORGI & Melvyn SIM, 2009. "A Satiscing Alternative to Prospect Theory," Swiss Finance Institute Research Paper Series 09-19, Swiss Finance Institute.
    21. Levy, Haim & Levy, Moshe, 2002. "Experimental test of the prospect theory value function: A stochastic dominance approach," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 1058-1081, November.

    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:eee:gamebe:v:52:y:2005:i:2:p:386-409. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622836 .

    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.