IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/expeco/v17y2014i4p537-563.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Beyond choice: investigating the sensitivity and validity of measures of strength of preference

Author

Listed:
  • David Butler
  • Andrea Isoni
  • Graham Loomes
  • Kei Tsutsui

Abstract

Many experiments investigating different decision theories have relied heavily on pairwise choices between lotteries. These are easy to incentivise, but often yield only limited dichotomous information. This paper considers whether respondents’ judgments about their strength of preference (SoP) for one alternative over another can usefully supplement standard choice data. We report extensive evidence that such judgments show sensitivity to variations in question format and parameter values in the directions we should expect, not only within-subject but also between-sample. We illustrate how such judgments can usefully supplement standard pairwise choice data and enrich our understanding of observed behaviour. Copyright The Author(s) 2014

Suggested Citation

  • David Butler & Andrea Isoni & Graham Loomes & Kei Tsutsui, 2014. "Beyond choice: investigating the sensitivity and validity of measures of strength of preference," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 17(4), pages 537-563, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:expeco:v:17:y:2014:i:4:p:537-563
    DOI: 10.1007/s10683-013-9383-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10683-013-9383-7
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10683-013-9383-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Nicholas Bardsley & Robin Cubitt & Graham Loomes & Peter Moffatt & Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden, 2009. "Experimental Economics: Rethinking the Rules," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 9074.
    2. 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.
    3. David Butler & Andrea Isoni & Graham Loomes, 2012. "Testing the ‘standard’ model of stochastic choice under risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 191-213, December.
    4. David Butler & Andrea Isoni & Graham Loomes & Daniel Navarro-Martinez, 2014. "On the Measurement of Strength of Preference in Units of Money," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 90, pages 1-15, June.
    5. Pavlo R. Blavatskyy, 2011. "A Model of Probabilistic Choice Satisfying First-Order Stochastic Dominance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(3), pages 542-548, March.
    6. 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..
    7. Wilcox, Nathaniel T., 2011. "'Stochastically more risk averse:' A contextual theory of stochastic discrete choice under risk," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 162(1), pages 89-104, May.
    8. David J. Butler & Graham C. Loomes, 2007. "Imprecision as an Account of the Preference Reversal Phenomenon," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(1), pages 277-297, March.
    9. repec:bla:jecsur:v:16:y:2002:i:5:p:621-55 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. John D. Hey & Chris Orme, 2018. "Investigating Generalizations Of Expected Utility Theory Using Experimental Data," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 3, pages 63-98, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    11. 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.
    12. Frederick Mosteller & Philip Nogee, 1951. "An Experimental Measurement of Utility," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(5), pages 371-371.
    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. Daniel Navarro-Martinez & Graham Loomes & Andrea Isoni & David Butler & Larbi Alaoui, 2018. "Boundedly rational expected utility theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 57(3), pages 199-223, December.
    2. Fabrice Lec & Serge Macé, 2018. "The curse of hope," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(3), pages 429-451, May.
    3. Arts, Sara & Ong, Qiyan & Qiu, Jianying, 2020. "Measuring subjective decision confidence," MPRA Paper 117907, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Qiu, Jianying, 2015. "Completing incomplete preferences," MPRA Paper 91692, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 18 Jul 2016.
    5. Arts, Sara & Ong, Qiyan & Qiu, Jianying, 2020. "Measuring subjective decision confidence," MPRA Paper 106811, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Liu Shi & Jianying Qiu & Jiangyan Li & Frank Bohn, 2024. "Consciously stochastic in preference reversals," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 68(3), pages 255-297, June.
    7. Georgios Gerasimou, 2019. "Simple Preference Intensity Comparisons," Discussion Paper Series, School of Economics and Finance 201905, School of Economics and Finance, University of St Andrews, revised 27 Apr 2020.
    8. Qiu, Jianying, 2015. "Completing incomplete preferences," MPRA Paper 72933, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 18 Jul 2016.
    9. David Butler & Andrea Isoni & Graham Loomes, 2012. "Testing the ‘standard’ model of stochastic choice under risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 191-213, December.
    10. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Johannes Buckenmaier & Michele Garagnani, 2020. "Stochastic choice and preference reversals," ECON - Working Papers 370, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Jul 2021.

    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. Daniel Navarro-Martinez & Graham Loomes & Andrea Isoni & David Butler & Larbi Alaoui, 2018. "Boundedly rational expected utility theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 57(3), pages 199-223, December.
    2. 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.
    3. David Butler & Andrea Isoni & Graham Loomes, 2012. "Testing the ‘standard’ model of stochastic choice under risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 191-213, December.
    4. Graham Loomes & Ganna Pogrebna, 2014. "Testing for independence while allowing for probabilistic choice," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 189-211, December.
    5. Blavatskyy, Pavlo, 2016. "Probability weighting and L-moments," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 255(1), pages 103-109.
    6. Nathaniel T. Wilcox, 2015. "Error and Generalization in Discrete Choice Under Risk," Working Papers 15-11, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    7. Robin Cubitt & Daniel Navarro-Martinez & Chris Starmer, 2015. "On preference imprecision," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 1-34, February.
    8. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2014. "Stronger utility," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 76(2), pages 265-286, February.
    9. Alexander Harin, 2024. "About a “Certain-uncertain†Inconsistency within the Generally Accepted Experimental Procedures of Behavioral Economics," International Journal of Economics and Financial Research, Academic Research Publishing Group, vol. 10(2), pages 17-30, 06-2024.
    10. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2021. "A simple non-parametric method for eliciting prospect theory's value function and measuring loss aversion under risk and ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 91(3), pages 403-416, October.
    11. Ryan O. Murphy & Robert H. W. ten Brincke, 2018. "Hierarchical Maximum Likelihood Parameter Estimation for Cumulative Prospect Theory: Improving the Reliability of Individual Risk Parameter Estimates," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 308-328, January.
    12. Liu Shi & Jianying Qiu & Jiangyan Li & Frank Bohn, 2024. "Consciously stochastic in preference reversals," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 68(3), pages 255-297, June.
    13. 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).
    14. Harrison, Glenn W., 2008. "Neuroeconomics: A Critical Reconsideration," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(3), pages 303-344, November.
    15. Harin, Alexander, 2014. "Problems of utility and prospect theories. A discontinuity of Prelec’s function," MPRA Paper 61027, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. David M. Bruner, 2017. "Does decision error decrease with risk aversion?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(1), pages 259-273, March.
    17. Blavatskyy, Pavlo, 2018. "Fechner’s strong utility model for choice among n>2 alternatives: Risky lotteries, Savage acts, and intertemporal payoffs," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 75-82.
    18. Blavatskyy, Pavlo, 2013. "Which decision theory?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 40-44.
    19. George Wu & Alex B. Markle, 2008. "An Empirical Test of Gain-Loss Separability in Prospect Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(7), pages 1322-1335, July.
    20. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2021. "Probabilistic independence axiom," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 46(1), pages 21-34, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Strength of preference; Risky choice; Individual decisions; Experimental methods; B40; C91; D03; D81;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • B40 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Economic Methodology - - - General
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    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:kap:expeco:v:17:y:2014:i:4:p:537-563. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.