Do Preference Reversals Disappear When We Allow for Probabilistic Choice?

References

• Arrow K, Solow R, Portney P, Leamer E, Radner R, Schuman H (1993) Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation (Resources for the Future, Washington, DC).Google Scholar
• Bateman I, Carson R, Day B, Hanemann M, Hanley N, Hett T, Jones-Lee Met al. (2002) Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Becker G, DeGroot M, Marschak J (1964) Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behavioral Sci. 9(3):226–232.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bell D (1982) Regret in decision making under uncertainty. Oper. Res. 30(5):961–981.Link, Google Scholar
• Blais A, Weber E (2006) A domain-specific risk-taking (DOSPERT) scale for adult populations. Judgment Decision Making 1(1):33–47.Google Scholar
• Blavatskyy P (2009) Preference reversals and probabilistic decisions. J. Risk Uncertainty 39(3):237–250.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blavatskyy P, Pogrebna G (2010) Models of stochastic choice and decision theories: Why both are important for analyzing decisions. J. Appl. Econometrics 25(6):963–986.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bostic R, Herrnstein R, Luce R (1990) The effect on the preference reversal phenomenon of using choice indifferences. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 13(2):193–212.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Busemeyer J, Townsend J (1993) Decision field theory: A dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. Psych. Rev. 100(3):432–459.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Butler DJ, Loomes GC (2007) Imprecision as an account of the preference reversal phenomenon. Amer. Econom. Rev. 97(1):277–297.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohen M, Jaffray J-Y, Said T (1987) Experimental comparison of individual behavior under risk and under uncertainty for gains and for losses. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 39(1):1–22.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fishburn PC (1988) Nonlinear Preference and Utility Theory (Wheatsheaf Books, Brighton, UK).Google Scholar
• Grether D, Plott C (1979) Economic theory of choice and the preference reversal phenomenon. Amer. Econom. Rev. 69(4):623–638.Google Scholar
• Guo Y, Regenwetter M (2014) Quantitative tests of the perceived relative argument model: Comment on Loomes (2010). Psych. Rev. 121(4):696–705.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Holt C, Laury S (2002) Risk aversion and incentive effects. Amer. Econom. Rev. 92(5):1644–1655.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Johnson J, Busemeyer J (2005) A dynamic, stochastic, computational model of preference reversal phenomena. Psych. Rev. 112(4):841–861.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–291.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levy-Garboua L, Maafi H, Masclet D, Terracol A (2012) Risk aversion and framing effects. Experiment. Econom. 15(1):128–144.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lichtenstein S, Slovic P (1971) Reversals of preference between bids and choices in gambling decisions. J. Experiment. Psych. 89(1):46–55.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lindman H (1971) Inconsistent preferences among gambles. J. Experiment. Psych. 89(2):390–397.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Loomes G (2014) Quantitative tests of the perceived relative argument model: Reply to Guo and Regenwetter (2014). Psych. Rev. 121(4):706–710.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Loomes G, Pogrebna G (2014a) Measuring individual risk attitudes when preferences are imprecise. Econom. J. 124(576):569–593.Google Scholar
• Loomes G, Pogrebna G (2014b) Testing for independence while allowing for probabilistic choice. J. Risk Uncertainty 49(3):189–211.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Loomes G, Sugden R (1982) Regret theory: An alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty. Econom. J. 92(368):805–824.Google Scholar
• Loomes G, Sugden R (1983) A rationale for preference reversals. Amer. Econom. Rev. 73(3):428–432.Google Scholar
• Loomes G, Starmer C, Sugden R (1991) Observing violations of transitivity by experimental methods. Econometrica 59(2):425–439.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luce RD (2000) Utility of Gains and Losses Measurement Theoretical and Experimental Approaches (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ).Google Scholar
• Luce RD, Suppes P (1965) Preference, utility, and subjective probability. Luce RD, Bush RR, Galanter E, eds. Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, Vol. 3 (John Wiley & Sons, New York), 249–441.Google Scholar
• MacCrimmon K, Smith M (1986) Imprecise equivalences: Preference reversals in money and probability. Working paper, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.Google Scholar
• Mosteller F, Nogee P (1951) An experimental measurement of utility. J. Political Econom. 59:371–404.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Otter T, Johnson J, Rieskamp J, Allenby GM, Brazell JD, Diedrich A, Hutchinson JW, MacEachern S, Ruan S, Townsend J (2008) Sequential sampling models of choice: Some recent advances. Marketing Lett. 19(3):255–267.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Parducci A (1965) Category judgment: A range-frequency model. Psych. Rev. 72(6):407–418.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rieskamp J, Busemeyer J, Mellers B (2006) Extending the bounds of rationality: Evidence and theories of preferential choice. J. Econom. Literature 44(3):631–661.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sanchez Martinez F, Pinto Prades J, Abellan Perpinan J, Martinez Perez J (2015) Avoiding preference reversals with opaque methods. Working paper, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.Google Scholar
• Seidl C (2002) Preference reversal. J. Econom. Surveys 16(5):621–655.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sopher B, Gigliotti G (1993) Intransitive cycles: Rational choice or random error? An answer based on estimation of error rates with experimental data. Theory Decision 35(3):311–336.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stott H (2006) Cumulative prospect theory’s functional menagerie. J. Risk Uncertainty 32(2):101–130.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D (1992) Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertainty 5(4):297–323.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Slovic P, Kahneman D (1990) The causes of preference reversal. Amer. Econom. Rev. 80(1):204–217.Google Scholar