IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/huaewp/232671.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Non Parametric Test of the Expected Utility Hypothesis

Author

Listed:
  • Bar-Shira, Ziv

Abstract

A nonparametric test of the expected utility hypothesis is developed. It is shown that the expected utility hypothesis holds if there exists a feasible solution to a system of linear inequalities. Furthermore, when a feasible solution exists boundaries on the coefficient of absolute risk aversion can be calculated explicitly. The test is applied to data on land allocations that are modeled as choices over lottery sets. The result is that the expected utility hypothesis cannot be rejected in most of the cases. This result is in contrast to results obtained in many laboratory experiments.

Suggested Citation

  • Bar-Shira, Ziv, 1990. "A Non Parametric Test of the Expected Utility Hypothesis," Working Papers 232671, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Center for Agricultural Economic Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:huaewp:232671
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.232671
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/232671/files/hebrewuniv-workingpapers-9005.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.232671?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Machina, Mark J, 1982. ""Expected Utility" Analysis without the Independence Axiom," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(2), pages 277-323, March.
    2. Green, Richard C. & Srivastava, Sanjay, 1986. "Expected utility maximization and demand behavior," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 313-323, April.
    3. Lindon J. Robison, 1982. "An Appraisal of Expected Utility Hypothesis Tests Constructed from Responses to Hypothetical Questions and Experimental Choices," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 64(2), pages 367-375.
    4. 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..
    5. Machina, Mark J, 1989. "Dynamic Consistency and Non-expected Utility Models of Choice under Uncertainty," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 27(4), pages 1622-1668, December.
    6. Varian, Hal R., 1983. "Nonparametric Tests of Models of Investor Behavior," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(3), pages 269-278, September.
    7. Harry Markowitz, 1952. "The Utility of Wealth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 60(2), pages 151-151.
    8. Rothschild, Michael & Stiglitz, Joseph E., 1970. "Increasing risk: I. A definition," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 225-243, September.
    9. Just, Richard E, 1977. "Estimation of an Adaptive Expectations Model," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 18(3), pages 629-644, October.
    10. Chalfant, James A & Alston, Julian M, 1988. "Accounting for Changes in Tastes," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 96(2), pages 391-410, April.
    11. Samuelson, Paul A, 1977. "St. Petersburg Paradoxes: Defanged, Dissected, and Historically Described," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 15(1), pages 24-55, March.
    12. Conlisk, John, 1989. "Three Variants on the Allais Example," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(3), pages 392-407, June.
    13. Menezes, C & Geiss, C & Tressler, J, 1980. "Increasing Downside Risk," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(5), pages 921-932, December.
    14. Machina, Mark J, 1987. "Choice under Uncertainty: Problems Solved and Unsolved," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 1(1), pages 121-154, Summer.
    15. Fishburn, Peter C., 1983. "Transitive measurable utility," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 293-317, December.
    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. Abler, David G., 1992. "Issues In Pesticide Policy: Discussion," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 21(2), pages 1-3, October.
    2. Z. Bar‐Shira & R.E. Just & D. Zilberman, 1997. "Estimation of farmers' risk attitude: an econometric approach," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 17(2-3), pages 211-222, December.
    3. Bard, Sharon K. & Barry, Peter J., 2001. "Assessing Farmers' Attitudes Toward Risk Using The "Closing-In" Method," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 26(1), pages 1-13, July.
    4. Nelson, Carl H. & Ndjeunga, Jupiter, 1997. "Elliptical Symmetry, Expected Utility, And Mean-Variance Analysis," ACE Reports 14795, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics.
    5. McDonald, Jeffrey D. & Moffitt, L. Joe & Willis, Cleve E., 1997. "Application of mean-Gini stochastic efficiency analysis," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 41(1), pages 1-18.
    6. Pannell, David J. & Malcolm, Bill & Kingwell, Ross S., 1995. "Are We Risking Too Much? Perspectives on Risk in Farm Modelling and Farm Management," 1995 Conference (39th), February 14-16, 1995, Perth, Australia 171063, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    7. Hanna L. Breetz & Karen Fisher-Vanden & Hannah Jacobs & Claire Schary, 2005. "Trust and Communication: Mechanisms for Increasing Farmers’ Participation in Water Quality Trading," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(2).
    8. Richard Horan & James Shortle & David Abler, 2002. "Ambient Taxes Under m-Dimensional Choice Sets, Heterogeneous Expectations, and Risk-Aversion," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 21(2), pages 189-202, February.
    9. Timothy K. M. Beatty & Ian A. Crawford, 2011. "How Demanding Is the Revealed Preference Approach to Demand?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(6), pages 2782-2795, October.
    10. Finkelshtain, Israel & Feinerman, Eli, 1997. "Framing the Allais paradox as a daily farm decision problem: tests and explanations," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 155-167, January.
    11. Tsur, Yacov & Zemel, Amos, 1998. "Pollution control in an uncertain environment," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 22(6), pages 967-975, June.
    12. van Mellor, Thuy & Alexander, Corinne E. & Bledsoe, Larry & Krupke, Christian, 2006. "An Economic Analysis of Control of the Western Corn Rootworm Variant across Indiana," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21264, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    13. Pannell, David J. & Malcolm, Bill & Kingwell, Ross S., 2000. "Are we risking too much? Perspectives on risk in farm modelling," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 23(1), pages 69-78, June.

    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. 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.
    2. Zvi Safra & Uzi Segal, 2005. "Are Universal Preferences Possible? Calibration Results for Non-Expected Utility Theories," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 633, Boston College Department of Economics.
    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. Basieva, Irina & Khrennikova, Polina & Pothos, Emmanuel M. & Asano, Masanari & Khrennikov, Andrei, 2018. "Quantum-like model of subjective expected utility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 150-162.
    5. Kontek, Krzysztof, 2015. "Fanning-Out or Fanning-In? Continuous or Discontinuous? Estimating Indifference Curves Inside the Marschak-Machina Triangle using Certainty Equivalents," MPRA Paper 63965, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Dillenberger, David & Segal, Uzi, 2017. "Skewed noise," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 344-364.
    7. Maria J. Ruiz Martos, 2017. "Individual Dynamic Choice Behaviour and the Common Consequence Effect," ThE Papers 17/01, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    8. Michele Bernasconi, 2002. "How should income be divided? questionnaire evidence from the theory of “Impartial preferences”," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 77(1), pages 163-195, December.
    9. Christian Gollier & James Hammitt & Nicolas Treich, 2013. "Risk and choice: A research saga," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 129-145, October.
    10. Chiu, W. Henry, 2019. "Comparative statics in an ordinal theory of choice under risk," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 113-123.
    11. Border, Kim C. & Segal, Uzi, 1997. "Coherent Odds and Subjective Probability," University of Western Ontario, Departmental Research Report Series 9717, University of Western Ontario, Department of Economics.
    12. 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.
    13. W. Wong & R. Chan, 2008. "Prospect and Markowitz stochastic dominance," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 105-129, January.
    14. Peter Brooks & Simon Peters & Horst Zank, 2014. "Risk behavior for gain, loss, and mixed prospects," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(2), pages 153-182, August.
    15. Chan, Raymond H. & Clark, Ephraim & Wong, Wing-Keung, 2016. "On the Third Order Stochastic Dominance for Risk-Averse and Risk-Seeking Investors with Analysis of their Traditional and Internet Stocks," MPRA Paper 75002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Sushil Bikhchandani & Uzi Segal, 2021. "Intransitivity in the small and in the large," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 63(3), pages 257-273, December.
    17. 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.
    18. Pavlo R. Blavatskyy, "undated". "A Stochastic Expected Utility Theory," IEW - Working Papers 231, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    19. Elie Appelbaum, 2000. "Estimating the firm's demand and supply functions under uncertainty without expected utility," Working Papers 2000_5, York University, Department of Economics.
    20. 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

    Keywords

    Research Methods/ Statistical Methods;

    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:ags:huaewp:232671. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/caehuil.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.