Modeling choice and valuation in decision experiments

Psychological Review

Volumn 117, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 902-924

  Loomes, Graham ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Decision anomalies; Intransitivity; Relative judgment; Similarity

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; DECISION THEORY; HIGH RISK BEHAVIOR; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; PROBABILITY; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; PSYCHOLOGY; REWARD; PROCEDURES;

CHOICE BEHAVIOR; DECISION MAKING; DECISION THEORY; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PROBABILITY; PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL; REWARD; RISK-TAKING;

EID: 77955322679     PISSN: 0033295X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0019807     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Allais M. Le comportement de l'homme rationnel devant le risque: Critique des postulats et axiomes de l'Ecole Americaine [The behavior of rational man in the face of risk: A critique of the postulates and axioms of the American school]. Econometrica 1953, 21:503-546.
2. Bateman I., Day B., Loomes G., Sugden R. Ranking versus choice in the elicitation of preferences [Working paper] 2006, University of East Anglia.
3. Battalio R., Kagel J., Jiranyakul K. Testing between alternative models of choice under uncertainty: Some initial results. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1990, 3:25-50.
4. Becker G., DeGroot M., Marschak J. Stochastic models of choice behavior. Behavioral Science 1963, 8:41-55.
5. Bell D. Regret in decision making under uncertainty. Operations Research 1982, 30:961-981.
6. Bell D. Disappointment in decision making under uncertainty. Operations Research 1985, 33:1-27.
7. Bernasconi M. Nonlinear preferences and two-stage lotteries: Theory and evidence. Economic Journal 1994, 104:54-70.
8. Brandstatter E., Gigerenzer G., Hertwig R. The priority heuristic: making choices without trade-offs. Psychological Review 2006, 113:409-432.
9. Budescu D., Weiss W. Reflection of transitive and intransitive preferences: A test of prospect theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 1987, 39:184-202.
10. Buschena D., Zilberman D. Testing the effects of similarity on risky choice: Implications for violations of expected utility. Theory and Decision 1999, 46:251-276.
11. Buschena D., Zilberman D. Generalized expected utility, heteroscedastic error, and path dependence in risky choice. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2000, 20:67-88.
12. Butler D., Loomes G. Imprecision as an account of the preference reversal phenomenon. American Economic Review 2007, 97:277-297.
13. Camerer C. Individual decision making. Handbook of experimental economics 1995, 587-703. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. J. Kagel, A. Roth (Eds.).
14. Day B., Loomes G. Conflicting violations of transitivity and where they may lead us. Theory and Decision 2009, 68:233-242.
15. Fishburn P. Nonlinear preference and utility theory 1988, Wheatsheaf, Brighton, England.
16. Fishburn P. Nontransitive measurable utility. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1982, 26:31-67.
17. Gonzalez-Vallejo C. Making trade-offs: A probabilistic and context-sensitive model of choice behavior. Psychological Review 2002, 109:137-155.
18. Gul F. A theory of disappointment aversion. Econometrica 1991, 59:667-686.
19. Kahneman D., Tversky A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 1979, 47:263-291.
20. Leland J. Generalized similarity judgments: An alternative explanation for choice anomalies. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1994, 9:151-172.
21. Leland J. Similarity judgments in choice under uncertainty: A reinterpretation of the predictions of regret theory. Management Science 1998, 44:659-672.
22. Lichtenstein S., Slovic P. Reversals of preference between bids and choices in gambling decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1971, 89:46-55.
23. Lindman H., Lyons J. Stimulus complexity and choice inconsistency among gambles. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 1978, 21:146-159.
24. Loomes G. When actions speak louder than prospects. American Economic Review 1988, 78:463-470.
25. Loomes G. Modelling the stochastic component of behavior in experiments: Some issues for the interpretation of data. Experimental Economics 2005, 8:301-323.
26. Loomes G. The improbability of a general, rational and descriptively adequate theory of decision under risk [Working paper] 2006, University of Warwick. Available at http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/academic/loomes/workingpapers.
27. Loomes G., Moffatt P., Sugden R. A microeconometric test of alternative stochastic theories of risky choice. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2002, 24:103-130.
28. Loomes G., Pinto-Prades J.-L., Abellan-Perpinan J., Rodríguez-Miguez E. Modelling noise and imprecision in individual decisions [Working paper] 2009, University of Warwick. Available at http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/academic/loomes/workingpapers.
29. Loomes G., Starmer C., Sugden R. Observing violations of transitivity by experimental methods. Econometrica 1991, 59:425-439.
30. Loomes G., Sugden R. Regret theory: An alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty. Economic Journal 1982, 92:805-824.
31. Loomes G., Sugden R. Disappointment and dynamic consistency in choice under uncertainty. Review of Economic Studies 1986, 53:271-282.
32. Loomes G., Sugden R. Some implications of a more general form of regret theory. Journal of Economic Theory 1987, 41:270-287.
33. Loomes G., Sugden R. Incorporating a stochastic element into decision theories. European Economic Review 1995, 39:641-648.
34. Loomes G., Sugden R. Testing different stochastic specifications of risky choice. Economica 1998, 65:581-598.
35. Loomes G., Taylor C. Nontransitive preferences over gains and losses. Economic Journal 1992, 102:357-365.
36. Machina M. 'Expected utility' theory without the independence axiom. Econometrica 1982, 50:277-323.
37. Mellers B., Biagini K. Similarity and choice. Psychological Review 1994, 101:505-518.
38. Moffatt P. Stochastic choice and the allocation of cognitive effort. Experimental Economics 2005, 8:369-388.
39. Quiggin J. A theory of anticipated utility. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 1982, 3:323-343.
40. Rabin M. Risk aversion and expected utility theory: A calibration theorem. Econometrica 2000, 68:1281-1292.
41. Rieskamp J., Busemeyer J., Mellers B. Extending the bounds of rationality: Evidence and theories of preferential choice. Journal of Economic Literature 2006, 44:631-661.
42. Rubinstein A. Similarity and decision making under risk: Is there a utility theory resolution to the Allais paradox?. Journal of Economic Theory 1988, 46:145-153.
43. Schmidt U., Starmer C., Sugden R. Third-generation prospect theory. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2008, 36:203-223.
44. Seidl C. Preference reversal. Journal of Economic Surveys 2002, 6:621-655.
45. Shafir E., Osherson D., Smith E. The advantage model: A comparative theory of evaluation and choice under risk. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 1993, 55:325-378.
46. Starmer C. Developments in non-expected utility theory: The hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk. Journal of Economic Literature 2000, 38:332-382.
47. Stewart N., Chater N., Stott H., Reimers S. Prospect relativity: How choice options influence decisions under risk. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2003, 132:23-46.
48. Tversky A. Intransitivity of preferences. Psychological Review 1969, 76:31-48.
49. Tversky A., Kahneman D. Rational choice and the framing of decisions. Journal of Business 1986, 59:S251-S278.
50. Tversky A., Kahneman D. Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1992, 5:297-323.
51. Tversky A., Slovic P., Kahneman D. The causes of preference reversal. American Economic Review 1990, 80:204-217.