IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceco/v38y2009i4p622-629.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Non-expected utility maximizers behave as if expected utility maximizers: An experimental test

Author

Listed:
  • Kurata, Hiroshi
  • Izawa, Hiroshi
  • Okamura, Makoto

Abstract

We investigate the behaviors of subjects who either do or do not adhere to the expected utility theory using the Becker-DeGroot-Marschak (BDM) method. We directly examine the validity of the expected utility theory in order to distinguish subjects into two groups: those who adhere to the expected utility theory (expected utility maximizers) and those who do not adhere to it (non-expected utility maximizers), and then execute the BDM experiment in the both groups. We find that the differences in the stated prices between the expected and non-expected utility maximizers are not significant. This result implies practical usefulness for the BDM method.

Suggested Citation

  • Kurata, Hiroshi & Izawa, Hiroshi & Okamura, Makoto, 2009. "Non-expected utility maximizers behave as if expected utility maximizers: An experimental test," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 622-629, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:38:y:2009:i:4:p:622-629
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6W5H-4V8GB52-1/2/67458cf6e742a7e1773a43f0449beaa2
    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. Starmer, Chris & Sugden, Robert, 1993. "Testing for Juxtaposition and Event-Splitting Effects," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 235-254, June.
    2. Segal, Uzi, 1990. "Two-Stage Lotteries without the Reduction Axiom," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 58(2), pages 349-377, March.
    3. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Humphrey, Steven J., 1996. "Do anchoring effects underlie event-splitting effects? An experimental test," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 51(3), pages 303-308, June.
    5. Anne Rozan, 2004. "Willingness-to-pay for food safety: an experimental investigation of quality certification on bidding behaviour," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 31(4), pages 409-425, December.
    6. Anne Rozan & Anne Stenger & Marc Willinger, 2004. "Willingness-to-pay for food safety: An experimental investigation of quality certification on bidding behaviour," Framed Field Experiments 00197, The Field Experiments Website.
    7. Humphrey, Steven J, 1995. "Regret Aversion or Event-Splitting Effects? More Evidence under Risk and Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 263-274, December.
    8. Mas-Colell, Andreu & Whinston, Michael D. & Green, Jerry R., 1995. "Microeconomic Theory," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195102680, Decembrie.
    9. Segal, Uzi, 1988. "Does the Preference Reversal Phenomenon Necessarily Contradict the Independence Axiom?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 78(1), pages 233-236, March.
    10. Karni, Edi & Safra, Zvi, 1987. ""Preference Reversal' and the Observability of Preferences by Experimental Methods," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(3), pages 675-685, May.
    11. Hong, Chew Soo & Nishimura, Naoko, 2003. "Revenue non-equivalence between the English and the second-price auctions: experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 51(4), pages 443-458, August.
    12. Holt, Charles A, 1986. "Preference Reversals and the Independence Axiom," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(3), pages 508-515, June.
    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. Jonathan Chapman & Mark Dean & Pietro Ortoleva & Erik Snowberg & Colin Camerer, 2023. "Econographics," Journal of Political Economy Microeconomics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(1), pages 115-161.
    2. Jonathan Chapman & Mark Dean & Pietro Ortoleva & Erik Snowberg & Colin Camerer, 2017. "Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept are Probably Less Correlated Than You Think," NBER Working Papers 23954, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Patrick DeJarnette & David Dillenberger & Daniel Gottlieb & Pietro Ortoleva, 2020. "Time Lotteries and Stochastic Impatience," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(2), pages 619-656, March.
    4. Denis Shishkin & Pietro Ortoleva, 2021. "Ambiguous Information and Dilation: An Experiment," Working Papers 2020-53, Princeton University. Economics Department..
    5. Jonathan Chapman & Erik Snowberg & Stephanie Wang & Colin Camerer, 2018. "Loss Attitudes in the U.S. Population: Evidence from Dynamically Optimized Sequential Experimentation (DOSE)," NBER Working Papers 25072, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Jonathan Chapman & Mark Dean & Pietro Ortoleva & Erik Snowberg & Colin Camerer, 2021. "On the Relation between Willingness to Accept and Willingness to Pay," Working Papers 2021-90, Princeton University. Economics Department..
    7. Patrick DeJarnette & David Dillenberger & Daniel Gottlieb & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Time Lotteries," PIER Working Paper Archive 15-026, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 31 Jul 2015.
    8. Patrick DeJarnette & David Dillenberger & Daniel Gottlieb & Pietro Ortoleva, 2014. "Time Lotteries, Second Version," PIER Working Paper Archive 15-026v2, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 12 Jan 2018.
    9. Shishkin, Denis & Ortoleva, Pietro, 2023. "Ambiguous information and dilation: An experiment," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    10. Eisenhauer, Joseph G., 2010. "Rank-ordering of risk preferences with conventional and discrete measures," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 50(3), pages 291-297, August.

    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. 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.
    2. Ulrich Schmidt & Christian Seidl, 2014. "Reconsidering the common ratio effect: the roles of compound independence, reduction, and coalescing," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(3), pages 323-339, October.
    3. Patrick DeJarnette & David Dillenberger & Daniel Gottlieb & Pietro Ortoleva, 2020. "Time Lotteries and Stochastic Impatience," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(2), pages 619-656, March.
    4. Aurélien Baillon & Yoram Halevy & Chen Li, 2022. "Experimental elicitation of ambiguity attitude using the random incentive system," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(3), pages 1002-1023, June.
    5. Humphrey, Steven J., 2000. "The common consequence effect: testing a unified explanation of recent mixed evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 239-262, March.
    6. Humphrey, Steven J., 1996. "Do anchoring effects underlie event-splitting effects? An experimental test," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 51(3), pages 303-308, June.
    7. Ulrich Schmidt & Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden, 2008. "Third-generation prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 203-223, June.
    8. Marc Willinger, 1990. "La rénovation des fondements de l'utilité et du risque," Revue Économique, Programme National Persée, vol. 41(1), pages 5-48.
    9. Glenn Harrison & J. Swarthout, 2014. "Experimental payment protocols and the Bipolar Behaviorist," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(3), pages 423-438, October.
    10. Belianin Alexis, 1998. "Risk Attitudes and Choice under Uncertainty: Experimental Evidence from Russia," EERC Working Paper Series 98-01e, EERC Research Network, Russia and CIS.
    11. Andreas Glöckner & Baiba Renerte & Ulrich Schmidt, 2020. "Violations of coalescing in parametric utility measurement," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 89(4), pages 471-501, November.
    12. Brown, Alexander L. & Healy, Paul J., 2018. "Separated decisions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 20-34.
    13. Slawomir Kalinowski, 2020. "From expected utility theory to prospect theory: tracking down the experimental path after forty years," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 30(4), pages 39-56.
    14. Harrison, Glenn W. & Martínez-Correa, Jimmy & Swarthout, J. Todd, 2015. "Reduction of compound lotteries with objective probabilities: Theory and evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 32-55.
    15. Steven Humphrey, 1999. "Probability Learning, Event-Splitting Effects and the Economic Theory of Choice," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 51-78, February.
    16. Humphrey, Steven J., 1998. "More mixed results on boundary effects," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 79-84, October.
    17. Yaron Azrieli & Christopher P. Chambers & Paul J. Healy, 2020. "Incentives in experiments with objective lotteries," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(1), pages 1-29, March.
    18. James C. Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj, 2018. "Incentives," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2018-01, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    19. Enrico Diecidue & Peter Wakker & Marcel Zeelenberg, 2007. "Eliciting decision weights by adapting de Finetti’s betting-odds method to prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 179-199, June.
    20. Banerjee, Priyodorshi & Das, Tanmoy, 2019. "Simultaneous decisions under risk: An experimental investigation," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 82(C).

    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:soceco:v:38:y:2009:i:4:p:622-629. 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/620175 .

    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.