IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login

Citations for "Expected Utility Theory and the Experimentalists"

by Harrison, Glenn W

For a complete description of this item, click here. For a RSS feed for citations of this item, click here.
as in new window

  1. Buschena, David E. & Atwood, Joseph A., 2011. "Evaluation of similarity models for expected utility violations," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 162(1), pages 105-113, May.
  2. Ronald Harstad, 2000. "Dominant Strategy Adoption and Bidders' Experience with Pricing Rules," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 3(3), pages 261-280, December.
  3. Giuseppe Attanasi & Aldo Montesano, 2012. "The price for information about probabilities and its relation with risk and ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(1), pages 125-160, July.
  4. Vital Anderhub & Werner Gäuth & Wieland Mäuller & Martin Strobel, 2000. "An Experimental Analysis of Intertemporal Allocation Behavior," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 137-152, October.
  5. John Dickhaut & Daniel Houser & Jason A. Aimone & Dorina Tila & Cathleen A. Johnson, 2008. "High Stakes Behavior with Low Payoffs: Inducing Preferences with Holt-Laury Gambles," Working Papers 08-11, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
  6. James C. Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj & Ulrich Schmidt, 2011. "Paradoxes and Mechanisms for Choice under Risk," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2011-07, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University, revised Mar 2014.
  7. Burke, Michael S, et al, 1996. "An Experimental Note on the Allais Paradox and Monetary Incentives," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 617-32.
  8. Fan, Chinn-Ping, 2002. "Allais paradox in the small," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 411-421, November.
  9. Ulrich Schmidt & Christian Seidl, 2014. "Reconsidering the common ratio effect: The roles of compound independence, reduction, and coalescing," Kiel Working Papers 1930, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
  10. Brown Kruse, Jamie & Thompson, Mark A., 2001. "A comparison of salient rewards in experiments: money and class points," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 113-117, December.
  11. Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten Igel & Rutström, Elisabeth E., 2007. "Behavioral Econometrics for Psychologists," Working Papers 18-2007, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Economics.
  12. Schmidt, Ulrich & Birnbaum, Michael, 2014. "The Impact of Experience on Violations of Independence and Coalescing," Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100463, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
  13. Joyce E Berg & John W Dickhaut & Thomas A Rietz, 2004. "Preference Reversals: The Impact of Truth-Revealing Incentives," Levine's Bibliography 122247000000000571, UCLA Department of Economics.
  14. Steffen Huck & Wieland Müller, 2012. "Allais for all: Revisiting the paradox in a large representative sample," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 261-293, June.
  15. Bohm, Peter, 2003. "Experimental evaluations of policy instruments," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 10, pages 437-460 Elsevier.
  16. Fiore, Annamaria, 2009. "Experimental Economics: Some Methodological Notes," MPRA Paper 12498, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  17. Seidl, C. & Traub, S., 1996. "Testing Decision Rules for Multiattribute Decision Making," Discussion Paper 1996-92, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
  18. Seidl, C. & Traub, S., 1996. "Rational Choice and the Relevance of Irrelevant Alternatives," Discussion Paper 1996-91, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
  19. Kuhberger, Anton & Schulte-Mecklenbeck, Michael & Perner, Josef, 2002. "Framing decisions: Hypothetical and real," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 1162-1175, November.
  20. Chanel, Olivier & Chichilnisky, Graciela, 2013. "Valuing life: Experimental evidence using sensitivity to rare events," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 198-205.
  21. Nathalie Etchart-Vincent & Olivier L'Haridon, 2011. "Monetary incentives in the loss domain and behavior toward risk: An experimental comparison of three reward schemes including real losses," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-00742027, HAL.
  22. Dickhaut, John & Smith, Vernon & Xin, Baohua & Rustichini, Aldo, 2013. "Human economic choice as costly information processing," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 206-221.
  23. Amalia Di Girolamo & Glenn W. Harrison & Morten I. Lau & J. Todd Swarthout, 2013. "Characterizing Financial and Statistical Literacy," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2013-04, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
  24. Peter Wakker & Veronika Köbberling & Christiane Schwieren, 2007. "Prospect-theory’s Diminishing Sensitivity Versus Economics’ Intrinsic Utility of Money: How the Introduction of the Euro can be Used to Disentangle the Two Empirically," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 63(3), pages 205-231, November.
  25. Kim Kaivanto & Eike Kroll, 2014. "Alternation bias and reduction in St. Petersburg gambles," Working Papers 65600286, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
  26. Guido Baltussen & G. Post & Martijn Assem & Peter Wakker, 2012. "Random incentive systems in a dynamic choice experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 418-443, September.
  27. Berg, Joyce E. & Dickhaut, John W. & Rietz, Thomas A., 2010. "Preference reversals: The impact of truth-revealing monetary incentives," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 443-468, March.
  28. Robin Cubitt & Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden, 1998. "On the Validity of the Random Lottery Incentive System," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 115-131, September.
This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.