The Impact of Learning by Thought on Violations of Independence and Coalescing

References

• Binmore KG (1999) Why experiments in economics? Econom. J. 109:F16–F24.Google Scholar
• Birnbaum MH (2001) Decision and choice: Paradoxes of choice. Smelser NJ, Baltes PB, eds. International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences (Elsevier, Oxford, UK), 3286–3291.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Birnbaum MH (2004) Causes of allais common consequence paradoxes: An experimental dissection. J. Math. Psych. 48:87–106.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Birnbaum MH (2005) Three new tests of independence that differentiate models of risky decision making. Management Sci. 51(9):1346–1358.Link, Google Scholar
• Birnbaum MH (2012) A statistical test of the assumption that repeated choices are independently and identically distributed. Judgment and Decision Making 7:97–109.Google Scholar
• Birnbaum MH (2013) True-and-error models violate independence and yet they are testable. Judgment Decision Making 8: 717–737.Google Scholar
• Birnbaum MH, Chavez A (1997) Tests of theories of decision making: Violations of branch independence and distribution independence. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 71:161–194.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Birnbaum MH, McIntosh WR (1996) Violations of branch independence in choices between gambles. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 67:91–110.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Birnbaum MH, Navarrete JB (1998) Testing descriptive utility theories: Violations of stochastic dominance and cumulative independence. J. Risk Uncertainty 17:17–49.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Birnbaum MH, Patton JN, Lott MK (1999) Evidence against rank-dependent utility theories: Tests of cumulative independence, interval independence, stochastic dominance, and transitivity. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 77:44–83.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Birnbaum MH, Schmidt U, Schneider MD (2009) Testing independence conditions in the presence of errors and splitting effects. Working paper.Google Scholar
• Cox JC, Grether DM (1996) The preference reversal phenomenon: Response mode, markets and incentives. Econom. Theory 7: 381–405.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dufwenberg M, Lindqvist T, Moore E (2005) Bubbles and experience: An experiment. Amer. Econom. Rev. 95:1731–1737.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Green JR, Jullien B (1988) Ordinal independence in nonlinear utility theory. J. Risk Uncertainty 1:355–387.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrison GW (1994) Expected utility theory and the experimentalists. Empirical Econom. 19(2):223–253.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hey JD (2001) Does repetition improve consistency? Experiment. Econom. 4(1):5–54.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hertwig R, Erev I (2009) The description-experience gap in risky choice. Trends Cognitive Sci. 13:517–523.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Humphrey SJ (1995) Regret aversion or event-splitting effects? More evidence under risk and uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertainty 11:263–274.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Humphrey SJ (2001) Non-transitive choice: Event-splitting effects or framing effects? Economica 68:77–96.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Loomes G, Starmer C, Sugden R (2003) Do anomalies disappear in repeated markets? Econom. J. 113:C153–C166.Google Scholar
• Luce RD (1991) Rank- and sign-dependent linear utility models for binary gambles. J. Econom. Theory 53:75–100.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luce RD, Fishburn PC (1991) Rank- and sign-dependent linear utility models for finite first-order gambles. J. Risk Uncertainty 4:29–59.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Myagkov M, Plott CR (1997) Exchange economies and loss exposure: Experiments exploring prospect theory and competitive equilibria in market environments. Amer. Econom. Rev. 87(5): 801–828.Google Scholar
• Nicholls N, Romm AT, Zimper A (2015) The impact of statistical learning on violations of the sure-thing principle. J. Risk and Uncertainty. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
• Plott CR (1996) Rational individual behaviour in markets and social choice processes: The discovered preference hypothesis’. Arrow KJ, Colombatto E, Perlman M, Schmidt C, eds. The Rational Foundations of Economic Behaviour (Macmillan, Basingstoke, UK), 225–250.Google Scholar
• Quiggin J (1981) Risk perception and risk aversion among Australian farmers. Australian J. Agricultural Econom. 25:160–169.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Quiggin J (1982) A theory of anticipated utility. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 3:323–343.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schmidt U, Seidl C (2014) Reconsidering the common ratio effect: The roles of compound independence, reduction, and coalescing. Theory and Decision 77(3):323–339.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith VL (1989) Theory, experiment and economics. J. Econom. Perspect. 3(1):151–169.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Starmer C (1992) Testing new theories of choice under uncertainty using the common consequence effect. Rev. Econom. Stud. 59:813–830.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Starmer C, Sugden R (1989) Probability and juxtaposition effects: An experimental investigation of the common ratio effect. J. Risk Uncertainty 2:159–178.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Starmer C, Sugden R (1993) Testing for juxtaposition and event-splitting effects. J. Risk Uncertainty 6:235–254.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D (1992) Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertainty 5:297–323.Crossref, Google Scholar
• van de Kuilen G (2009) Subjective probability weighting and the discovered preference hypothesis. Theory Decision 67:1–22.Crossref, Google Scholar
• van de Kuilen G, Wakker PP (2006) Learning in the allais paradox. J. Risk Uncertainty 33:155–164.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wakker PP, Tversky A (1993) An axiomatization of cumulative prospect theory. J. Risk Uncertainty 7:147–176.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wu G (1994) An empirical test of ordinal independence. J. Risk Uncertainty 9:39–60.Crossref, Google Scholar