Does learning diminish violations of independence, coalescing and monotonicity?

Theory and Decision

Volumn 61, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 93-128

  Humphrey, Steven J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Discovered preferences; Event splitting effects; Independence; Monotonicity; Probability learning

Indexed keywords

DATA REDUCTION; INFORMATION ANALYSIS; LEARNING SYSTEMS; PROBABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT;

DISCOVERED PREFERENCES; EVENT-SPLITTING EFFECTS; INDEPENDENCE; MONOTONICITY; PROBABILITY LEARNING;

DECISION THEORY;

EID: 33746656884     PISSN: 00405833     EISSN: 15737187     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11238-006-8047-x     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Alba, J. W. and Marmorstein, H. (1987), The effects of frequency knowledge on consumer decision making, Journal of Consumer Research 14, 14-25.
2. Bateman, I., Munro, A., Rhodes, B., Starmer, C. and Sugden, R. (1997), Does part-whole bias exist? An experimental investigation, Economic Journal 107, 322-331.
3. Becker, G., DeGroot, M. and Marschak, J. (1964). Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method, Behavioral Science 9, 226-232.
4. Binmore, K. (1999), Why experiment in economics, Economic Journal 109, F16-F24.
5. Camerer, C. (1995), Individual decision making, in Kagel, J. H. and Roth, A. E. (eds.), The Handbook of Experimental Economics, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
6. Chu, Y. and Chu, R. (1990), The subsidence of preference reversals in simplified and marketlike experimental settings: A note, American Economic Review 80, 902-911.
7. Cox, J. C. and Grether, D. M. (1996), The preference reversal phenomenon: Response mode, markets and incentives, Economic Theory 7, 381-405.
8. Cubitt, R. P., Starmer, C. and Sugden, R. (2001), Discovered preferences and the experimentally observed violations of expected utility theory, Journal of Economic Methodology 8, 385-414.
9. Diecidue, E. and Wakker, P. (2001), On the intuition of rank-dependent expected utility, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 23, 281-298.
10. Einhorn, H. J. and Hogarth, R. M. (1978), Confidence in judgment: Persistence in the illusion of validity, Psychological Review 85, 396-416.
11. Estes, W. K. (1976a), The cognitive side of probability learning, Psychological Review 83, 37-64.
12. Estes, W. K. (1976b), Some functions of memory in probability learning and choice behavior, in Bower, G. H. (ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Vol. 10. Academic Press, New York.
13. Friedman, D. (1998), Monty Hall's three doors: Construction and deconstruction of a choice anomaly, American Economic Review 88, 933-946.
14. Grether, D. and Plott, C. (1979), Economic theory of choice and the preference reversal rhenomenon, American Economic Review 69, 623-638.
15. Harrison, G. (1994), Expected utility and the experimentalists, Empirical Economics 19, 223-253.
16. Holt, C. (1986), Preference reversals and the independence axiom, American Economic Review 76, 508-515.
17. Humphrey, S.J. (1995), Event-splitting effects or regret-aversion: More evidence under risk and uncertainty, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 11, 263-274.
18. Humphrey, S. J. (1999), Probability learning, event-splitting effects and the economic theory of choice, Theory and Decision 46, 51-78.
19. Humphrey, S. J. (2001), Are event-splitting effects actually boundary effects? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 22, 79-93.
20. Humphrey, S. J. and Bleaney, M. (2006), An experimental test of generalized ambiguity aversion using lottery pricing tasks, Theory and Decision 60, 257-282.
21. Johnson, E. J., Hershey, J., Meszaros, J. and Kunreuther, H.. (1993), Framing, probability distortions, and insurance decisions, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 7, 35-51.
22. Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A.: (1979), Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk, Econometrica 47, 263-291.
23. Loewenstein, G. (1999), Experimental economics from the vantage point of behavioural economics, Economic Journal 109, F25-F34.
24. Loomes, G. (1999), Some lessons from past experiments and challenges for the future, Economic Journal 109, F35-F45.
25. Loomes, G., Moffatt, P. and Sugden R. (2002), A microeconometric test of alternative stochastic theories of risky choice, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 24, 103-130.
26. Plott, C. R.: (1996), Rational individual behaviour in markets and social choice processes: The discovered preference hypothesis, in Arrow, K. J., Colombatto, E., Perlman, M., and Schmidt, C. (eds.), The Rational Foundations of Economic Behaviour, MacMillan, Basingstoke.
27. Segal, U.: (1988), Does the preference reversal phenomenon necessarily contradict the independence axiom?, American Economic Review 78, 233-236.
28. Slovic, P. and Tversky, A. (1974), Who accepts Savage's axiom?, Behavioral Science 19, 368-373.
29. Smith, V. L. (1989), Theory, experiment and economics, Journal of Economic Perspectives 3, 151-169.
30. Starmer, C. (1999a), Cycling with rules of thumb: An experimental test for a new form on non-transitive behaviour, Theory and Decision 46, 141-158
31. Starmer, C. (1999b), Experimental economics: Hard science or wasteful tinkering? Economic Journal 109, F5-F15.
32. Starmer, C. and Sugden, R. (1993), Testing for juxtaposition and event-splitting effects, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 6, 235-254.
33. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1992), Advances in prospect theory: A cumulative representation of uncertainty, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5, 291-323.
34. Tversky, A. and Koehler, D. J. (1994), Support theory. A nonextensional representation of subjective probability, Psychological Review 101, 547-567.
35. Tversky, A., Slovic, P. and Kahneman, D. (1990), The causes of preference reversal, American Economic Review 80, 204-217.
36. Weber, M., Eisenführ, F. and von Winterfeldt, D. (1988), The effects of splitting attributes on weights in multiattribute utility measurement, Management Science 34, 431-445.
37. Wu, G., and Gonzalez, R. (1998), Common consequence conditions in decision making under risk, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 16, 95-115.