Axiomatization of a preference for most probable winner

Theory and Decision

Volumn 60, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 17-33

  Blavatskyy, Pavlo R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Axiomatization; Betweenness; Expected utility theory; Fan ning in; Regret theory; Skew symmetric bilinear utility

Indexed keywords

FUNCTIONS; PROBABILITY;

AXIOMATIZATION; BETWEENNESS; EXPECTED UTILITY THEORY; FAN-NING-IN; REGRET THEORY; SKEW-SYMMETRIC BILINEAR UTILITY;

DECISION THEORY;

EID: 33645061509     PISSN: 00405833     EISSN: 15737187     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11238-005-4753-z     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Allais, M. (1953), Le comportement de l'homme rationnel devant le risque: critique des postulates et axiomes de l'école Américaine, Econometrica 21, 503-546.
2. Bar-Hillel, M. and Margalit, A. (1988), How vicious are cycles of intransitive choice? Theory and Decision 24, 119-145.
3. Barron, G. and Erev, I. (2003), Small feedback-based decisions and their limited correspondence to description-based decisions, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 16, 215-233.
4. Battalio, R., Kagel, J. and Jiranyakul, K. (1990), Testing between alternative models of choice under uncertainty: Some initial results, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 3, 25-50.
5. Bernasconi, M. (1994) Nonlineal preference and two-stage lotteries: theories and evidence, Economic Journal 104, 54-70.
6. Blavatskyy, P. (2003), Content-dependent preferences in choice under risk: heuristic of relative probability comparisons, IIASA Interim Report IR-03-031 www.iiasa.ac.at/Publications/Documents/IR-03-031.pdf
7. Blavatskyy, P. (2003a), Note on "Small feedback-based decisions and their limited correspondence to description-based decisions", CERGE-EI Working Paper#218 www.cerge-ei.cz/pdf/wp/Wp218.pdf
8. Blavatskyy, P. (2004), Axiomatization of a preference for most probable winner, CERGE-EI Working Paper#226 http: www.cerge-ei.cz/pdf/wp/Wp226.pdf
9. Blavatskyy, P. (2005), Violations of betweenness or random errors? Economics Letters, forthcoming.
10. Blyth, C. (1972), Some probability paradoxes in choice from among random alternatives, Journal of the American Statistical Association 67, 366-382.
11. Bosman, R. and van Winden, F. (2001), "Anticipated and experienced emotions in an investment experiment", Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper No 01-058/1.
12. Camerer, C. (1989), An experimental test of several generalized utility theories, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2, 61-104.
13. Camerer, C. (1992), Recent tests of generalizations of expected utility theory, In Utility: Theories, Measurement, and Applications. W. Edwards (ed.), Kluwer, 207-251.
14. Camerer, C. and Ho, T. (1994), "Violations of the betweenness axiom and nonlinearity in probability", Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 8, 167-196.
15. Chew, S. and Waller, W. (1986), Empirical tests of weighted utility theory, Journal of Mathematical Psychology 30, 55-72.
16. Conlisk, J. (1989), Three variants on the Allais example, American Economic Review 79, 392-407.
17. Coombs, C. and Huang, L. (1976), Tests of the betweenness property of expected utility, Journal of Mathematical Psychology 13, 323-337.
18. Cubitt, R. and Sugden, R. (2001), Dynamic decision-making under uncertainty: an experimental investigation of choices between accumulator gambles, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 22, 103-28.
19. Cubitt, R., Starmer, Ch. and Sugden, R. (2004), Dynamic decisions under uncertainty: some recent evidence from economics and psychology, in I. Brocas, and J. Carrillo (eds.), The Psychology of Economic Decisions: Reasons and Choices (Vol. 2), OUP, Oxford, pp. 81-110.
20. Fishburn, P. (1982), Nontransitive measurable utility, Journal of Mathematical Psychology 26, 31-67.
21. Fishburn, P. (1988), Nonlinear Preference and Utility Theory, Wheatsheaf Books Ltd.
22. Friedman, F. and Savage L. (1952), The expected-utility hypothesis and the measurability of utility, Journal of Political Economy LX, 463-474.
23. Gigerenzer, G. and Goldstein, D. (1996), Reasoning the fast and frugal way. Models of bounded rationality, Psychological Review 103, 650-669.
24. Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. and the ABC Research Group (1999), Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
25. Gigliotti, G. and Sopher, B. (1993), A test of generalized expected utility theory, Theory and Decision 35, 75-106.
26. Humphrey, S. and Verschoor, A. (2004), Decision-making under risk among small farmers in East Uganda, Journal of African Economies, 13 44-101.
27. Kagel, J., MacDonald, D., Battalio, R. (1990), Tests of 'fanning out' of indifference curves: results from animal and human experiments, American Economic Review 80, 912-921.
28. Knight, F. (1921), Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit, Houghton Mifflin, New York.
29. Loomes, G., Starmer, Ch. and Sugden, R. (1992), Are preferences monotonic? Testing some predictions of regret theory, Economica 59, 17-33.
30. Loomes, G. and Sugden, R. (1982), Regret theory: an alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty, Economic Journal 92, 805-824.
31. Loomes, G. and Sugden, R. (1987), Some applications of a more general form of regret theory, Journal of Economic Theory 41, 270-287.
32. Loomes, G. and Sugden, R. (1995), Incorporating a stochastic element into decision theories, European Economic Review 39, 641-648.
33. Loomes, G. and Sugden, R. (1998), Testing different stochastic specifications of risky choice, Economica 65, 581-598.
34. Machina, M. (1982), 'Expected utility' analysis without the independence axiom', Econometrica 50, 277-323.
35. Machina, M. (1987), 'Choice under uncertainty: problems solved and unsolved', Journal of Economic Perspectives 1, 121-154.
36. Neilson, W. (1992), A mixed fan hypothesis and its implications for behavior toward risk, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 19, 197-211.
37. Newell, B. and Shanks, D.R. (2003), Take the best or look at the rest? Factors influencing "one-reason" decision making, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition 29, 53-65.
38. Prelec, D. (1990), A 'pseudo-endowment' effect, and its implications for some recent nonexpected utility models, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 3, 247-259.
39. Savage, L.J. (1954), The Foundations of Statistics. John Wiley, New York.
40. Starmer, Ch. (1992), Testing new theories of choice under uncertainty using the common consequence effect, Review of Economic Studies 59, 813-830.
41. Starmer, Ch. (2000), Developments in non-expected utility theory: the hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk, Journal of Economic Literature 38, 332-382.
42. Starmer, Ch. and Sugden, R. (1989), Probability and juxtaposition effects: An experimental investigation of the common ratio effect, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2, 159-178.
43. Thaler, R. and Johnson, E. (1990), Gambling with the house money and trying to break even: the effects of prior outcomes on risky choice, Management Science 36, 643-661.
44. Tversky, A. (1969), Intransitivity of preference, Psychological Review 76, 31-48.
45. Tversky, A. and Simonson, I. (1993) Context-dependent preferences, Management Science 39, 1179-1189.
46. Wu, G. and Gonzalez, R. (1996), Curvature of the probability weighting function, Management Science 42, 1676-90.
47. Wu, G. and Gonzalez, R. (1998), Common consequence conditions in decision making under risk, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 16, 115-139.