IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Reconciling Some Conflicting Evidence on Decision Making under Uncertainty


  • Edward J. Green

    (Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis)


Laboratory experiments concerning decision under uncertainty tend to uncover systematic violations of Bayesian rationality. When models that posit Bayesian rationality are compared to non-experimental data, though, they fit the data well. One possible explanation is that an agent's global pattern of choices may not be rationalizable, but that the pattern may satisfy weak conditions sufficent to rationalize the limited range of choices required by any particular decision protocol. Examples of such patterns are constructed here. An agent who adopts a protocol acts rationally, but an experimenter induces irrationality by imposing distinct protocols in various phases of the experiment.

Suggested Citation

  • Edward J. Green, 1995. "Reconciling Some Conflicting Evidence on Decision Making under Uncertainty," Game Theory and Information 9509002, EconWPA.
  • Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpga:9509002
    Note: 10 pages, plain TeX

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Green, Edward J. & Park, In-Uck, 1996. "Bayes contingent plans," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 225-236, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C7 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory
    • D8 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty


    Access and download statistics


    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:wpa:wuwpga:9509002. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (EconWPA). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.