Tests of theories of decision making: Violations of branch independence and distribution independence

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

Volumn 71, Issue 2, 1997, Pages 161-194

  Birnbaum, Michael H ^a   Chavez, Alfredo ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

Allais paradox; branch independence; comonotonic independence; cumulative prospect theory; configural weighting; distribution independence; Ellsberg paradox; expected utility theory; independence; interval independence

Indexed keywords

EID: 0040747456     PISSN: 07495978     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/obhd.1997.2721     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Birnbaum M. H. Morality judgment: Test of an averaging model with differential weights. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 99:1973;395-399.
2. Birnbaum M. H. The nonadditivity of personality impressions. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 102:1974;543-561.
3. Birnbaum M. H. Controversies in psychological measurement. Social attitudes and psychophysical measurement. 1982;Erlbaum, Hillsdale. p. 401-485.
4. Birnbaum M. H. Issues in utility measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 52:1992;319-330.
5. Birnbaum M. H. Violations of monotonicity in judgment and decision making. Marley A. A. J. Choice, decision and measurement: Essays in honor of R. Duncan Luce. 1997;73-100 Erlbaum, Mahwah.
6. Birnbaum M. H., Beeghley D. Violations of branch independence in judgments of the value of gambles. Psychological Science. 8:1997;87-94.
7. Birnbaum M. H., Coffey G., Mellers B. A., Weiss R. Utility measurement: Configural-weight theory and the judge's point of view. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 18:1992;331-346.
8. Birnbaum M. H., Jou J. W. A theory of comparative response times and "difference" judgments. Cognitive Psychology. 22:1990;184-210.
9. M. H. Birnbaum, J. Navarrete, Testing rank- and sign-dependent utility theories: Violations of stochastic dominance and cumulative independence.
10. Birnbaum M. H., McIntosh W. R. Violations of branch independence in choices between gambles. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 67:1996;91-110.
11. M. H. Birnbaum, W. R. McIntosh, Violations of branch independence without fillers: Evidence against cancellation theory.
12. Birnbaum M. H., Sotoodeh Y. Measurement of stress: Scaling the magnitudes of life changes. Psychological Science. 2:1991;236-243.
13. Birnbaum M. H., Stegner S. E. Source credibility in social judgment: Bias, expertise, and the judge's point of view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 37:1979;48-74.
14. Birnbaum M. H., Stegner S. E. Measuring the importance of cues in judgment for individuals: Subjective theories of IQ as a function of heredity and environment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 17:1981;159-182.
15. Birnbaum M. H., Sutton S. E. Scale convergence and utility measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 52:1992;183-215.
16. Birnbaum M. H., Thompson L. A., Bean D. J. Testing interval independence versus configural weighting using judgments of strength of preference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 23:1997;939-947.
17. M. H. Birnbaum, R. Veira, Configural weighting in two- and four-outcome gambles, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.
18. M. H. Birnbaum, J. M. Zimmermann, Configural weighting model of buying and selling prices predicts violations of joint independence in judgments of investments.
19. Champagne M., K. Stevenson M. Contrasting models of appraisal judgments for positive and negative purposes using policy modeling. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 59:1994;93-123.
20. Chandler J. P. STEPIT: Finds local minima of a smooth function of several parameters (CPA 312). Behavioral Science. 14:1969;81-82.
21. Edwards W. The theory of decision making. Psychological Bulletin. 51:1954;380-417.
22. Edwards W. Towards the demise of economic man and woman: Bottom lines from Santa Cruz. Edwards W. Utility theories: Measurements and applications. 1992;254-267 Kluwer, Boston.
23. Kahneman D., Tversky A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. 47:1979;263-291.
24. Karmarkar U. S. Subjectively weighted utility: A descriptive extension of the expected utility model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 21:1978;61-72.
25. Lopes L. Re-modeling risk aversion: A comparison of Bernoullian and rank dependent value approaches. von Furstenberg G. M. Acting under uncertainty. 1990;267-299 Kluwer, Boston.
26. Luce R. D. Where does subjective expected utility fail descriptively? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 5:1992;5-27.
27. Luce R. D. When four distinct ways to measure utility are the same. Journal of Mathematical Psychology. 40:1996;297-317.
28. Luce R. D., Fishburn P. C. Rank- and sign-dependent linear utility models for finite first order gambles. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 4:1991;29-59.
29. Luce R. D., Fishburn P. C. A note on deriving rank-dependent utility using additive joint receipts. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 11:1995;5-16.
30. Miyamoto J. M. Generic utility theory: measurement foundations and applications in multiattribute utility theory. Journal of Mathematical Psychology. 32:1989;357-404.
31. D. Prelec, 1995, The probability weighting function.
32. Quiggin J. A theory of anticipated utility. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 3:1982;324-345.
33. Riskey D. R., Birnbaum M. H. Compensatory effects in moral judgment: Two rights don't make up for a wrong. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 103:1974;171-173.
34. Savage L. J. The foundations of statistics. 1954;Wiley, New York.
35. Starmer C., Sugden R. Violations of the independence axiom in common ratio problems: An experimental test of some competing hypotheses. Annals of Operations Research. 19:1989;79-101.
36. Stevenson M. K., Busemeyer J. R., Naylor J. C. Judgment and decision-making theory. Dunnette M., Hough L. M. New handbook of industrial-organization psychology. 1991;283-374 Consulting Psychologist Press, Palo Alto.
37. Tversky A. Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review. 79:1972;281-299.
38. Tversky A., Fox C. R. Weighing Risk and Uncertainty. Psychological Review. 102:1995;269-283.
39. Tversky A., Kahneman D. Rational choice and the framing of decisions. Journal of Business. 59:1986;S251-S278.
40. Tversky A., Kahneman D. Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 5:1992;297-323.
41. Tversky A., Wakker P. Risk attitudes and decision weights. Econometrica. 63:1995;1255-1280.
42. Viscusi K. W. Prospective reference theory: Toward an explanation of the paradoxes. Journal of risk and uncertainty. 2:1989;235-264.
43. Wakker P., Erev I., Weber E. U. Comonotonic independence: The critical test between classical and rank-dependent utility theories. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 9:1994;195-230.
44. Wakker P., Tversky A. An axiomatization of cumulative prospect theory. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 7:1993;147-176.
45. Weber E. U., Kirsner B. Reasons for rank-dependent utility evaluation. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 14:1997;41-62.
46. Weber E. U. From subjective probabilities to decision weights: The effects of asymmetric loss functions on the evaluation of uncertain outcomes and events. Psychological Bulletin. 114:1994;228-242.
47. Wu G., Gonzalez R. Curvature of the probability weighting function. Management Science. 42:1996;1676-1690.