IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/74878.html

การทดสอบข้อสมมติของทฤษฎีเศรษฐศาสตร์เกี่ยวกับความมีเหตุผลของมนุษย์: หลักฐานเชิงประจักษ์จากการทดลองในระบบปิด
[Testing Rationality Assumptions in Economic Theory: Evidence from Closed Experiment]

Author

Listed:
  • สิทธิยศ, ฐิติเทพ
  • ธัญลักษณ์ภาคย์, เกษรา

Abstract

This study tests assumptions regarding human rationality, consistency, and decision-making process based on expected value as assumed in expected utility theory. The results from closed experiment using 24 graduate students from faculty of economics as a sample indicate that the majority of samples do not behave as the expected utility theory assumes. Rather, they show preference reversal and do not think in terms of expected value but use intuition. This study suggests that these unrealistic assumptions have to be abandoned and replaced with more realistic ones. Assuming rationality, consistency, and thinking process based on expected value for every decision-making has been proven by other fields of sciences as well as unorthodox economics that these behaviors are not consistent with actual human behaviors.

Suggested Citation

  • สิทธิยศ, ฐิติเทพ & ธัญลักษณ์ภาคย์, เกษรา, 2014. "การทดสอบข้อสมมติของทฤษฎีเศรษฐศาสตร์เกี่ยวกับความมีเหตุผลของมนุษย์: หลักฐานเชิงประจักษ์จากการทดลองในระบบปิด [Testing Rationality Assumptions in Economic Theory: Evidence from Closed Experiment]," MPRA Paper 74878, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 05 Jan 2015.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:74878
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/74878/1/MPRA_paper_74878.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/75098/1/MPRA_paper_75098.pdf
    File Function: revised version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel L. McFadden, 2013. "The New Science of Pleasure," NBER Working Papers 18687, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. 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, December.
    3. Andrew Foerster & Juan F. Rubio‐Ramírez & Daniel F. Waggoner & Tao Zha, 2016. "Perturbation methods for Markov‐switching dynamic stochastic general equilibrium models," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 7(2), pages 637-669, July.
    4. Surach Tanboon, 2008. "The Bank of Thailand Structural Model for Policy Analysis," Working Papers 2008-06, Monetary Policy Group, Bank of Thailand.
    5. Slovic, Paul & Lichtenstein, Sarah, 1983. "Preference Reversals: A Broader Perspective," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 596-605, September.
    6. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    7. Frederic S. Mishkin, 2007. "Housing and the monetary transmission mechanism," Proceedings - Economic Policy Symposium - Jackson Hole, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, pages 359-413.
    8. Grether, David M & Plott, Charles R, 1979. "Economic Theory of Choice and the Preference Reversal Phenomenon," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(4), pages 623-638, September.
    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. Sitthiyot, Thitithep, 2015. "Macroeconomic and Financial Management in an Uncertain World: What Can We Learn from Complexity Science?," MPRA Paper 73753, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 11 Dec 2015.
    2. Weber, Elke U., 1989. "A Behavioral Approach To Decision Making Under Uncertainty: Implications And Lessons For Expected Utility Theory," 1989 Quantifying Long Run Agricultural Risks and Evaluating Farmer Responses to Risk Meeting, April 9-12, 1989, Sanibel Island, Florida 271520, Regional Research Projects > S-232: Quantifying Long Run Agricultural Risks and Evaluating Farmer Responses to Risk.
    3. Berg, Nathan & Biele, Guido & Gigerenzer, Gerd, 2010. "Does consistency predict accuracy of beliefs?: Economists surveyed about PSA," MPRA Paper 26590, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. William C. McDaniel & Francis Sistrunk, 1991. "Management Dilemmas and Decisions," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 35(1), pages 21-42, March.
    5. Kim Kaivanto & Eike Kroll, 2014. "Alternation bias and reduction in St. Petersburg gambles," Working Papers 65600286, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    6. Garrett, Vicki & Koontz, Tomas M., 2008. "Breaking the cycle: Producer and consumer perspectives on the non-adoption of passive solar housing in the US," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 1551-1566, April.
    7. Lynd Bacon & Peter Lenk, 2012. "Augmenting discrete-choice data to identify common preference scales for inter-subject analyses," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 453-474, December.
    8. Drew Fudenberg & David K. Levine & Zacharias Maniadis, 2012. "On the Robustness of Anchoring Effects in WTP and WTA Experiments," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(2), pages 131-145, May.
    9. Murong Yang & Laurence S. J. Roope & James Buchanan & Arthur E. Attema & Philip M. Clarke & A. Sarah Walker & Sarah Wordsworth, 2022. "Eliciting risk preferences that predict risky health behavior: A comparison of two approaches," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(5), pages 836-858, May.
    10. Gregory B. Pollock & Keith A. Lewis, 1993. "Gambling in a Malthusian Universe," Rationality and Society, , vol. 5(1), pages 85-106, January.
    11. Sebastian Lehmann, 2014. "Toward an Understanding of the BDM: Predictive Validity, Gambling Effects, and Risk Attitude," FEMM Working Papers 150001, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.
    12. Hela Maafi, 2011. "Preference Reversals Under Ambiguity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(11), pages 2054-2066, November.
    13. Raphaël Giraud, 2005. "Anomalies de la théorie des préférences. Une interprétation et une proposition de formalisation," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 56(4), pages 829-854.
    14. Yoram Amiel & Frank Cowell & Liema Davidovitz & Avraham Polovin, 2008. "Preference reversals and the analysis of income distributions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 30(2), pages 305-330, February.
    15. Stachtiaris, Spiros & Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Klonaris, Stathis, "undated". "The "more is less" phenomenon in Contingent and Inferred valuation," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 116013, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Welsh, Michael P. & Poe, Gregory L., 1998. "Elicitation Effects in Contingent Valuation: Comparisons to a Multiple Bounded Discrete Choice Approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 170-185, September.
    17. Dorian Jullien & Nicolas Vallois, 2014. "A probabilistic ghost in the experimental machine," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(3), pages 232-250, September.
    18. Alexia Gaudeul, 2013. "Social preferences under uncertainty," Jena Economics Research Papers 2013-024, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    19. Levy, Nadav & Klein, Ido & Ben-Elia, Eran, 2018. "Emergence of cooperation and a fair system optimum in road networks: A game-theoretic and agent-based modelling approach," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 46-55.
    20. repec:isu:genstf:201501010800005579 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Gonzalez-Vallejo, Claudia & Moran, Elizabeth, 2001. "The Evaluability Hypothesis Revisited: Joint and Separate Evaluation Preference Reversal as a Function of Attribute Importance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 216-233, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • A12 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - Relation of Economics to Other Disciplines
    • D01 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles

    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:pra:mprapa:74878. 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.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.