IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/quante/v13y2022i2p761-786.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Revealing a preference for mixtures: An experimental study of risk

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Feldman
  • John Rehbeck

Abstract

Using a revealed preference approach, we conduct an experiment where subjects make choices from linear convex budgets in the domain of risk. We find that many individuals prefer mixtures of lotteries in ways that systematically rule out expected utility behavior. We explore the extent to which an individual's preference to choose mixtures is related to a preference for randomization by comparing choices from a convex choice task to the decisions made in a repeated discrete choice task. We find that a preference to mix is positively correlated with behavior from repeated discrete choice tasks.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Feldman & John Rehbeck, 2022. "Revealing a preference for mixtures: An experimental study of risk," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 13(2), pages 761-786, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:quante:v:13:y:2022:i:2:p:761-786
    DOI: 10.3982/QE1694
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.3982/QE1694
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3982/QE1694?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Edi Karni & Tim Salmon & Barry Sopher, 2008. "Individual sense of fairness: an experimental study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 11(2), pages 174-189, June.
    2. Uri Gneezy & Jan Potters, 1997. "An Experiment on Risk Taking and Evaluation Periods," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 631-645.
    3. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.
    4. 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..
    5. Drew Fudenberg & Annie Liang, 2019. "Predicting and Understanding Initial Play," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(12), pages 4112-4141, December.
    6. Peysakhovich, Alexander & Naecker, Jeffrey, 2017. "Using methods from machine learning to evaluate behavioral models of choice under risk and ambiguity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 373-384.
    7. James Andreoni & Charles Sprenger, 2011. "Uncertainty Equivalents: Testing the Limits of the Independence Axiom," NBER Working Papers 17342, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Harless, David W & Camerer, Colin F, 1994. "The Predictive Utility of Generalized Expected Utility Theories," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(6), pages 1251-1289, November.
    9. Barry Sopher & Mattison Narramore, 2000. "Stochastic Choice and Consistency in Decision Making Under Uncertainty: An Experimental Study," Departmental Working Papers 199626, Rutgers University, Department of Economics.
    10. Gary Charness & Edi Karni & Dan Levin, 2007. "Individual and group decision making under risk: An experimental study of Bayesian updating and violations of first-order stochastic dominance," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 35(2), pages 129-148, October.
    11. McFadden, Daniel, 1974. "The measurement of urban travel demand," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 303-328, November.
    12. Frederick Mosteller & Philip Nogee, 1951. "An Experimental Measurement of Utility," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59, pages 371-371.
    13. Syngjoo Choi & Raymond Fisman & Douglas Gale & Shachar Kariv, 2007. "Consistency, Heterogeneity, and Granularity of Individual Behavior under Uncertainty," Economics Working Papers 0076, Institute for Advanced Study, School of Social Science.
    14. Sopher & Narramore, 2000. "Stochastic Choice and Consistency in Decision Making Under Risk: An Experimental Study," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 323-349, June.
    15. Camerer, Colin F & Ho, Teck-Hua, 1994. "Violations of the Betweenness Axiom and Nonlinearity in Probability," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 167-196, March.
    16. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    17. Chew, S H & Epstein, Larry G & Segal, U, 1991. "Mixture Symmetry and Quadratic Utility," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(1), pages 139-163, January.
    18. Machina, Mark J, 1982. ""Expected Utility" Analysis without the Independence Axiom," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(2), pages 277-323, March.
    19. Charles Sprenger, 2015. "An Endowment Effect for Risk: Experimental Tests of Stochastic Reference Points," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 123(6), pages 1456-1499.
    20. Raymond Battalio & Leonard Green & John Kagel, 1995. "Economic choice theory. an experimental analysis of animal behavior," Framed Field Experiments 00166, The Field Experiments Website.
    21. Syngjoo Choi & Raymond Fisman & Douglas Gale & Shachar Kariv, 2007. "Consistency and Heterogeneity of Individual Behavior under Uncertainty," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1921-1938, December.
    22. Marina Agranov & Pietro Ortoleva, 2017. "Stochastic Choice and Preferences for Randomization," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 125(1), pages 40-68.
    23. Machina, Mark J, 1985. "Stochastic Choice Functions Generated from Deterministic Preferences over Lotteries," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 95(379), pages 575-594, September.
    24. Roy Allen & John Rehbeck, 2019. "Identification With Additively Separable Heterogeneity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(3), pages 1021-1054, May.
    25. Loomes, Graham & Starmer, Chris & Sugden, Robert, 1992. "Are Preferences Monotonic? Testing Some Predictions of Regret Theory," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 59(233), pages 17-33, February.
    26. Cettolin, Elena & Riedl, Arno, 2019. "Revealed preferences under uncertainty: Incomplete preferences and preferences for randomization," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 181(C), pages 547-585.
    27. James Andreoni & Marco Castillo & Ragan Petrie, 2003. "What Do Bargainers' Preferences Look Like? Experiments with a Convex Ultimatum Game," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(3), pages 672-685, June.
    28. Dekel, Eddie, 1986. "An axiomatic characterization of preferences under uncertainty: Weakening the independence axiom," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 304-318, December.
    29. Daniel McFadden, 2005. "Revealed stochastic preference: a synthesis," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 26(2), pages 245-264, August.
    30. James Andreoni & John Miller, 2002. "Giving According to GARP: An Experimental Test of the Consistency of Preferences for Altruism," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(2), pages 737-753, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Simone Cerreia-Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva & Gil Riella, 2019. "Deliberately Stochastic," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(7), pages 2425-2445, July.
      • Simone Cerreia-Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva & Gil Riella, 2012. "Deliberately Stochastic," PIER Working Paper Archive 17-013, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 25 May 2017.
    2. Allen, Roy & Dziewulski, Paweł & Rehbeck, John, 2022. "Making sense of monkey business: Re-examining tests of animal rationality," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 220-228.
    3. Heufer, Jan, 2013. "Quasiconcave preferences on the probability simplex: A nonparametric analysis," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 21-30.
    4. Daniel R. Burghart, 2020. "The two faces of independence: betweenness and homotheticity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 88(4), pages 567-593, May.
    5. Chew, Soo Hong & Miao, Bin & Shen, Qiang & Zhong, Songfa, 2022. "Multiple-switching behavior in choice-list elicitation of risk preference," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    6. Roy Allen & John Rehbeck, 2021. "A Generalization of Quantal Response Equilibrium via Perturbed Utility," Games, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-16, March.
    7. Roy Allen & Pawel Dziewulski & John Rehbeck, 2019. "Revealed statistical consumer theory," Working Paper Series 1119, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    8. Bin Miao & Songfa Zhong, 2018. "Probabilistic social preference: how Machina’s Mom randomizes her choice," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 65(1), pages 1-24, January.
    9. Zachary Breig, 2020. "Prediction and Model Selection in Experiments," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 96(313), pages 153-176, June.
    10. Dillenberger, David & Segal, Uzi, 2017. "Skewed noise," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 344-364.
    11. Pavlo R. Blavatskyy, 2020. "Dual choice axiom and probabilistic choice," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 61(1), pages 25-41, August.
    12. Manel Baucells & Antonio Villasís, 2010. "Stability of risk preferences and the reflection effect of prospect theory," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 193-211, February.
    13. Liang Zou, 2006. "An Alternative to Prospect Theory," Annals of Economics and Finance, Society for AEF, vol. 7(1), pages 1-28, May.
    14. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2007. "Stochastic expected utility theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 259-286, June.
    15. Ulrich Schmidt, 2001. "Lottery Dependent Utility: a Reexamination," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 35-58, February.
    16. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.
    17. Soham R. Phade & Venkat Anantharam, 2020. "Black-Box Strategies and Equilibrium for Games with Cumulative Prospect Theoretic Players," Papers 2004.09592, arXiv.org.
    18. Michele Bernasconi, 2002. "How should income be divided? questionnaire evidence from the theory of “Impartial preferences”," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 163-195, December.
    19. John D. Hey, 2018. "Why We Should Not Be Silent About Noise," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 13, pages 309-329, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    20. Daniel Burghart & Paul Glimcher & Stephanie Lazzaro, 2013. "An expected utility maximizer walks into a bar..," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 215-246, June.

    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:wly:quante:v:13:y:2022:i:2:p:761-786. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/essssea.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.