Allais for all: Revisiting the paradox in a large representative sample

Journal of Risk and Uncertainty

Volumn 44, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 261-293

  Huck, Steffen ^a,b   Müller, Wieland ^c,d  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b WZB BERLIN SOCIAL SCIENCE CENTER   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

^d TILBURG UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Allais paradox; Common consequence effect; Expected utility theory; Field experiments; Representative sample

Indexed keywords

EID: 84861790588     PISSN: 08955646     EISSN: 15730476     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11166-012-9142-8     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Allais, M. (1953). Le comportement de l'homme rationnel devant le risqué: Critique des postulats et axioms de l'ecole americaine. Econometrica, 21, 503-546.
2. Allais, M., & Hagen, O. (Eds.) (1979). Expected utility hypotheses and the Allais paradox. Dordrecht: Reidel.
3. Andersen, S., Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutström, E. E. (2008). Risk aversion in game shows. In J. C. Cox, & G. W. Harrison (Eds.), Risk aversion in experiments (Vol. 12). Greenwich: JAI Press. Research in Experimental Economics.
4. Banks, J. (2006). Economic choices, capabilities and outcomes at older ages. Fiscal Studies, 27, 281-311.
5. Bellemare, C., & Kröger, S. (2007). On representative social capital. European Economic Review, 51, 183-202.
6. Benjamin, D. J., Brown, S. A., & Shapiro, J. M. (2006). Who is "behavioral"? Cognitive ability and anomalous preferences. Working paper.
7. Burke, M. S., Carter, J. C., Gominiak, R. D., & Ohl, D. F. (1996). An experimental note on the Allais paradox and monetary incentives. Empirical Economics, 21, 617-632.
8. Burks, S. V., Carpenter, J. P., Götte, L., & Rustichini, A. (2009). Cognitive skills affect economic preferences, strategic behavior, and job attachment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 106, 7745-7750.
9. Camerer, C. (1995). Individual decision making. In J. H. Kagel, & A. E. Roth (Eds.), The handbook of experimental economics (pp. 587-703). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
10. Carbone, E. (2005). Demographics and behaviour. Experimental Economics, 8, 217-232.
11. Conlisk, J. (1989). Three variants on the Allais example. American Economic Review, 79, 392-407.
12. Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., & Sunde, U. (2010). Are risk aversion and impatience related to cognitive ability? American Economic Review, 100, 1238-1260.
13. Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., Sunde, U., Schupp, J., & Wagner, G. G. (2011). Individual risk attitudes: Measurement, determinants and behavioral consequences. Journal of the European Economic Association, 9, 522-550.
14. Eckel, C., & Grossman, P. (2000). Volunteers and pseudo-volunteers: The effect of recruitment method on subjects' behavior in experiments. Experimental Economics, 3, 107-120.
15. Fan, C.-P. (2002). Allais paradox in the small. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 49, 411-421.
16. Fatas, E., Neugebauer, T., & Tamborero, P. (2007). How politicians make decisions: A political choice experiment. Journal of Economics, 92, 167-196.
17. Gächter, S., Huck, S., & Weizsäcker, G. (2008). Socio-demographics and choice in experimental economics. Mimeo.
18. Harrison, G. W. (1994). Expected utility and the experimentalists. Empirical Economics, 19, 223-253.
19. Harrison, G. W., & List, J. A. (2004). Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature, 42, 1013-1059.
20. Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutström, E. E. (2009). Risk attitudes, randomization to treatment, and self-selection into experiments. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 70, 498-507.
21. Heckman, J. (1976). The common structure of statistical models of truncation, sample selection, and limited dependent variables and a simple estimator for such models. Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, 5, 475-492.
22. Hey, J. D. (2002). Experimental economics and the theory of decision making under risk and uncertainty. Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance Theory, 27, 5-21.
23. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291.
24. Levitt, S. D., & List, J. A. (2007). What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21, 153-174.
25. List, J. A., & Haigh, M. S. (2005). A simple test of expected utility theory using professional traders. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 102, 945-948.
26. MacCrimmon, K. R. (1968). Descriptive and normative implications of the decision-theory postulates. In K. Borch, & J. Mossin (Eds.), Risk and uncertainty (Chapter 1). London: Macmillan.
27. Machina, M. J. (1982). Expected utility analysis without the independence axiom. Econometrica, 50, 277-323.
28. Post, T., van den Assem, M. J., Baltussen, G., & Thaler, R. H. (2008). Deal or no deal? Decision making under risk in a large-payoff game show. American Economic Review, 98, 38-71.
29. Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1974). Who accepts Savage's axiom? Behavioral Sciences, 19, 368-373.
30. Starmer, C. (2000). Developments in non-expected utility theory: The hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk. Journal of Economic Literature, 38, 332-82.
31. Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (1991). Does the random-lottery incentive system elicit true preferences? An experimental investigation. American Economic Review, 81, 971-978.
32. van de Kuilen, G., & Wakker, P. P. (2006). Learning in the Allais paradox. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 13, 155-164.
33. Viscusi, W. K. (1989). Prospective reference theory: Toward an explanation of the paradoxes. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2, 235-264.
34. von Gaudecker, H.-M., van Soest, A., & Wengström, E. (2011a). Heterogeneity in risky choice behaviour in a broad population. American Economic Review, 101, 664-694.
35. von Gaudecker, H.-M., van Soest, A., & Wengström, E. (2011b). Experts in experiments: How selection matters for estimated distributions of risk preferences. IZA Discussion Paper No. 5575.