Preference Reversals for Ambiguity Aversion

References

• Abdellaoui M., Bleichrodt H., Paraschiv C. Loss aversion under prospect theory: A parameter-free measurement. Management Sci. (2007) 53:1659–1674Link, Google Scholar
• Abdellaoui M., Vossmann F., Weber M. Choice-based elicitation and decomposition of decision weights for gains and losses under uncertainty. Management Sci. (2005) 51:1384–1399Link, Google Scholar
• Arkes H. R. Costs and benefits of judgments errors: Implications for debiasing. Psych. Bull. (1991) 110:486–498Crossref, Google Scholar
• Armantier O. Do wealth differences affect fairness considerations? Internat. Econom. Rev. (2006) 47:391–429Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baltussen G., Post T., van den Assem M. J., Wakker P. P. Random incentive systems in a dynamic choice experiment. (2009) . Department of Economics, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
• Bardsley N., Cubitt R. P., Loomes G., Moffat P., Starmer C., Sugden R.Experimental Economics; Rethinking the Rules (2010) (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ) Google Scholar
• Bateman I. J., Munro A., Rhodes B., Starmer C., Sugden R. A test of the theory of reference-dependent preferences. Quart. J. Econom. (1997) 112:479–505Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baucells M., Heukamp F. H. Stochastic dominance and cumulative prospect theory. Management Sci. (2006) 52:1409–1423Link, Google Scholar
• Becker G. M., DeGroot M. H., Marschak J. Stochastic models of choice behavior. Behav. Sci. (1963) 8:41–55Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berg J. E., Dickhaut J. W., Rietz T. A. Preference reversals: The impact of truth-revealing monetary incentives. Games Econom. Behav. (2010) 68:443–468Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blavatskyy P. R. Preference reversals and probabilistic decisions. J. Risk Uncertainty (2009) 39:237–250Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blumenschein K., Blomquist G. C., Johannesson M., Horn N., Freeman P. Eliciting willingness to pay without bias: Evidence from a field experiment. Econom. J. (2008) 118:114–137Google Scholar
• Carlsson F., Johansson-Stenman O., Martinsson P. Is transport safety more valuable in the air? J. Risk Uncertainty (2004) 28:147–163Crossref, Google Scholar
• Choi S., Fishman R., Gale D., Kariv S. Consistency and heterogeneity of individual behavior under uncertainty. Amer. Econom. Rev. (2007) 97:1921–1938Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chow C. C., Sarin R. K. Comparative ignorance and the Ellsberg paradox. J. Risk Uncertainty (2001) 22:129–139Crossref, Google Scholar
• Coursey D. L., Hovis J. L., Schulze W. D. The disparity between willingness to accept and willingness to pay measures of value. Quart. J. Econom. (1987) 102:679–690Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cummins R. G., Harrison G. W., Rutström E. E. Homegrown values and hypothetical surveys: Is the dichotomous choice approach incentive-compatible? Amer. Econom. Rev. (1995) 85:260–266Google Scholar
• Du N., Budescu D. The effects of imprecise probabilities and outcomes in evaluating investment options. Management Sci. (2005) 51:1791–1803Link, Google Scholar
• Easley D., O'Hara M. Ambiguity and nonparticipation: The role of regulation. Rev. Financial Stud. (2009) 22:1817–1843Crossref, Google Scholar
• Economist, The Anti-terrorist spending. Feel safer now? (2008) March 8):64Google Scholar
• Eisenberger R., Weber M. Willingness-to-pay and willingness-to-accept for risky and ambiguous lotteries. J. Risk Uncertainty (1995) 10:223–233Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ellsberg D. Risk, ambiguity and the Savage axioms. Quart. J. Econom. (1961) 75:643–669Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr E., Götte L. Do workers work more if wages are high? Evidence from a randomized field experiment. Amer. Econom. Rev. (2007) 91:298–317Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fishburn P. C., LaValle I. H. Context-dependent choice with nonlinear and nontransitive preferences. Econometrica (1988) 56:1221–1239Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fox C. R., Tversky A. Ambiguity aversion and comparative ignorance. Quart. J. Econom. (1995) 110:585–603Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fox C. R., Weber M. Ambiguity aversion, comparative ignorance, and decision context. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes (2002) 88:476–498Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gächter S., Herrmann A., Johnson E. J. Individual-level loss aversion in riskless and risky choice. (2007) . Mimeo, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UKGoogle Scholar
• Grether D. M., Plott C. R. Economic theory of choice and the preference reversal phenomenon. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1979) 69:623–638Google Scholar
• Hahnemann W. M. Willingness to pay and willingness to accept: How much can they differ? Amer. Econom. Rev. (1991) 81:635–647Google Scholar
• Halevy Y. Ellsberg revisited: An experimental study. Econometrica (2007) 75:503–536Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrison G. W., Lau M. I., Rutström E. E. Estimating risk attitudes in Denmark: A field experiment. Scandinavian J. Econom. (2007) 109:341–368Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heath C., Tversky A. Preference and belief: Ambiguity and competence in choice under uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertainty (1991) 4:5–28Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hogarth R. M., Einhorn H. J. Venture theory: A model of decision weights. Management Sci. (1990) 36:780–803Link, Google Scholar
• Keren G. B., Gerritsen L. E. M. On the robustness and possible accounts of ambiguity aversion. Acta Psychologica (1999) 103:149–172Crossref, Google Scholar
• Langer E. J. The illusion of control. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (1975) 32:311–328Crossref, Google Scholar
• Langer T., Weber M. Prospect theory, mental accounting, and differences in aggregated and segregated evaluation of lottery portfolios. Management Sci. (2001) 47:716–733Link, Google Scholar
• Lichtenstein S., Slovic P. Reversals of preference between bids and choices in gambling decisions. J. Experiment. Psych. (1971) 89:46–55Crossref, Google Scholar
• Maafi H. Preference reversals under ambiguity. Management Sci. (2011) . ForthcomingLink, Google Scholar
• Pennings J. M. E., Smidts A. The shape of utility functions and organizational behavior. Management Sci. (2003) 49:1251–1263Link, Google Scholar
• Plott C. R., Arrow K. J., Colombatto E., Perlman M., Schmidt C. Rational individual behaviour in markets and social choice processes: The discovered preference hypothesis. The Rational Foundations Econom. Behav.: Proc. IEA Conf. (1996) Turin, Italy(St. Martins Press, New York) 225–250Google Scholar
• Pogrebna G. Ambiguity preference reversals. (2010) . Mimeo, Department of Economics, University of Warwick, UKGoogle Scholar
• Pulford B. D. Is luck on my side? Optimism, pessimism, and ambiguity aversion. Quart. J. Experiment. Psych. (2009) 62:1079–1087Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rigotti L., Shannon C. Uncertainty and risk aversion in financial markets. Econometrica (2005) 73:203–243Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rizzo J. A., Zeckhauser R. J. Reference incomes, loss aversion, and physician behavior. Rev. Econom. Statist. (2004) 85:909–922Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roca M., Hogarth R. M., Maule A. J. Ambiguity seeking as a result of the status quo bias. J. Risk Uncertainty (2006) 32:175–194Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schmidt U., Starmer C., Sugden R. F. Third-generation prospect theory. J. Risk Uncertainty (2008) 36:203–223Crossref, Google Scholar
• Seidl C. Preference reversal. J. Econom. Surveys (2002) 16:621–655Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith K., Dickhaut J. W., McCabe K., Pardo J. V. Neuronal substrates for choice under ambiguity, risk certainty, gains and losses. Management Sci. (2002) 48:711–718Link, Google Scholar
• Stalmeier P. F. M., Wakker P. P., Bezembinder T. G. G. Preference reversals: Violations of unidimensional procedure invariance. J. Experiment. Psych., Human Perception Performance (1997) 23:1196–1205Crossref, Google Scholar
• Starmer C., Sugden R. Does the random-lottery incentive system elicit true preferences? An experimental investigation. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1991) 81:971–978Google Scholar
• Stecher J., Shields T., Dickhaut J. Generating ambiguity in the laboratory. Management Sci. (2011) 57:705–712Link, Google Scholar
• Sugden R. Reference-dependent subjective expected utility. J. Econom. Theory (2003) 111:172–191Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thaler R. H., Johnson E. J. Gambling with the house money and trying to break even: The effects of prior outcomes on risky choice. Management Sci. (1990) 36:643–660Link, Google Scholar
• Tversky A., Fox C. R. Weighing risk and uncertainty. Psych. Rev. (1995) 102:269–283Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A., Kahneman D. Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertainty (1992) 5:297–323Crossref, Google Scholar
• Völckner F. An empirical comparison of methods for measuring consumers' willingness to pay. Marketing Lett. (2006) 17:137–149Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wakker P. P.Prospect Theory: For Risk and Ambiguity (2010) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zeckhauser R. J. Comments: Behavioral versus rational economics: What you see is what you conquer. J. Bus. (1986) 59:S435–S449Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zeckhauser R. J. Investing in the unknown and unknowable. Capitalism Soc. (2006) 1:1–39Crossref, Google Scholar