An Experimental Test of the Anscombe–Aumann Monotonicity Axiom

References

• Abdellaoui M, Klibanoff P, Placido L (2015) Experiments on compound risk in relation to simple risk and to ambiguity. Management Sci. 61(6):1306–1322.Link, Google Scholar
• Allais M (1953) Le comportement de l’homme rationnel devant le risque: Critique des postulats et axiomes de l’ecole Americaine. Econometrica 21(4):503–546.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Allais M (1979) The foundations of a positive theory of choice involving risk and a criticism of the postulates and axioms of the American school (1952). Allais M, Hagen O, eds. Expected Utility Hypotheses and the Allais Paradox (Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands), 27–145.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anscombe FJ, Aumann RJ (1963) A definition of subjective probability. Ann. Math. Statist. 34(1):199–205.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bade S (2015) Randomization devices and the elicitation of ambiguity-averse preferences. J. Econom. Theory 159(Part A):221–235.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baillon A, Bleichrodt H, Cillo A (2015) A tailor-made test of intransitive choice. Oper. Res. 63(1):198–211.Link, Google Scholar
• Bierman H (1989) The Allais paradox: A framing perspective. Behavioral Sci. 34(1):46–52.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Birnbaum MH (2008) New paradoxes of risky decision making. Psych. Rev. 115(2):463–501.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Birnbaum MH, Schmidt U (2008) An experimental investigation of violations of transitivity in choice under uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertainty 37(1):77–91.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Birnbaum MH, Navarro-Martinez D, Ungemach C, Stewart N, Quispe-Torreblanca EG (2016) Risky decision making: Testing for violations of transitivity predicted by an editing mechanism. Judgment Decision Making 11(1):75–91.Google Scholar
• Bock O, Baetge I, Nicklisch A (2014) hroot: Hamburg Registration and Organization Online Tool. Eur. Econom. Rev. 71(October):117–120.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bommier A (2017) A dual approach to ambiguity aversion. J. Math. Econom. 71:104–118.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Borhani F (2016) A generalized notion of probabilistic sophistication that applies to ambiguous beliefs. Working paper, Pennsylvania State University, University Park.Google Scholar
• Brothers AJ (1990) An empirical investigation of some properties that are relevant to generalized expected-utility theory. PhD thesis, University of California, Irvine, Irvine.Google Scholar
• Brown DP, Jackwerth JC (2012) The pricing kernel puzzle: Reconciling index option data and economic theory. Batten JA, Wagner N, eds. Derivative Securities Pricing and Modelling (Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, UK), 155–183.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cerreia-Vioglio S, Ghirardato P, Maccheroni F, Marinacci M, Siniscalchi M (2011) Rational preferences under ambiguity. Econom. Theory 48(2–3):341–375.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charness G, Karni E, Levin D (2007) Individual and group decision making under risk: An experimental study of Bayesian updating and violations of first-order stochastic dominance. J. Risk Uncertainty 35(2):129–148.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cheridito P, Delbaen F, Drapeau S, Kupper M (2015) Stochastic order-monotone uncertainty-averse preferences. Working paper, ETH Zurich, Zurich.Google Scholar
• Conlisk J (1989) Three variants on the Allais example. Amer. Econom. Rev. 79(3):392–407.Google Scholar
• Cox JC, Sadiraj V, Schmidt U (2014) Asymmetrically dominated choice problems, the isolation hypothesis and random incentive mechanisms. PLoS One 9(3):e9072, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0090742.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cubitt R, Ruiz-Martos M, Starmer C (2012) Are bygones bygones? Theory Decision 73(2):185–202.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cubitt RP, Starmer C, Sugden R (1998a) Dynamic choice and the common ratio effect: An experimental investigation. Econom. J. 108(450):1362–1380.Google Scholar
• Cubitt RP, Starmer C, Sugden R (1998b) On the validity of the random lottery incentive system. Experiment. Econom. 1(2):115–131.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dean M, Ortoleva P (2016) Is it all connected? A testing ground for unified theories of behavioral economics phenomena. Working paper, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
• Dominiak A, Schnedler W (2011) Attitudes toward uncertainty and randomization: An experimental study. Econom. Theory 48(2):289–312.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ellsberg D (1961) Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. Quart. J. Econom. 75(4):643–669.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fan C (2002) Allais paradox in the small. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 49(3):411–421.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Finkelstein A, Luttmer EFP, Notowidigdo MJ (2009) Approaches to estimating the health state dependence of the utility function. Amer. Econom. Rev. 99(2):116–121.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fischbacher U (2007) z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experiment. Econom. 10(2):171–178.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fox CR, Tversky A (1995) Ambiguity aversion and comparative ignorance. Quart. J. Econom. 110(3):585–603.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gilboa I, Marinacci M (2013) Ambiguity and the Bayesian paradigm. Acemoglu D, Arellano M, Dekel E, eds. Advances in Economics and Econometrics, Vol. 3, Chap. 7 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK), 179–242.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gilboa I, Schmeidler D (1989) Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior. J. Math. Econom. 18(2):141–153.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gilboa I, Maccheroni F, Marinacci M, Schmeidler D (2010) Objective and subjective rationality in a multiple prior model. Econometrica 78(2):755–770.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gillen B, Snowberg E, Yariv L (2018) Experimenting with measurement error: Techniques with applications to the Caltech Cohort Study. J. Political Econom. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
• Gneezy U, List JA, Wu G (2006) The uncertainty effect: When a risky prospect is valued less than its worst possible outcome. Quart. J. Econom. 121(4):1283–1309.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grant S, Polak B (2013) Mean-dispersion preferences and constant absolute uncertainty aversion. J. Econom. Theory 148(4):1361–1398.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Halevy Y (2007) Ellsberg revisited: An experimental study. Econometrica 75(2):503–536.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hey JD, Lee J (2005) Do subjects separate (or are they sophisticated)? Experiment. Econom. 8(3):233–265.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Holt CA (1986) Preference reversals and the independence axiom. Amer. Econom. Rev. 76(3):508–515.Google Scholar
• Huck S, Müller W (2012) Allais for all: Revisiting the paradox in a large representative sample. J. Risk Uncertainty 44(3):261–293.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–292.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Karni E, Safra Z (1987) “preference reversal” and the observability of preferences by experimental methods. Econometrica 55(3):675–685.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kashima Y, Maher P (1995) Framing of decisions under ambiguity. J. Behavioral Decision Making 8(1):33–49.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Keller LR (1985) The effects of problem representation on the sure-thing and substitution principles. Management Sci. 31(6):738–751.Link, Google Scholar
• Klibanoff P, Marinacci M, Mukerji S (2005) A smooth model of decision making under ambiguity. Econometrica 73(6):1849–1892.Crossref, Google Scholar
• L’Haridon O, Placido L (2010) Betting on Machinas reflection example: An experiment on ambiguity. Theory Decision 69(3):375–393.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
• Maccheroni F, Marinacci M, Rustichini A (2006) Ambiguity aversion, robustness, and the variational representation of preferences. Econometrica 74(6):1447–1498.Crossref, Google Scholar
• MacCrimmon K, Larsson S (1979) Utility theory: Axioms versus paradoxes. Allais M, Hagen O, eds. Expected Utility Hypotheses and the Allais Paradox, Theory and Decision Library, Vol. 21 (Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands), 333–409.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Machina MJ (1989) Dynamic consistency and non-expected utility models of choice under uncertainty. J. Econom. Literature 27(4):1622–1668.Google Scholar
• Machina MJ (2009) Risk, ambiguity, and the rank-dependence axioms. Amer. Econom. Rev. 99(1):385–392.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Machina MJ (2014) Ambiguity aversion with three or more outcomes. Amer. Econom. Rev. 104(12):3814–3840.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Machina MJ, Schmeidler D (1995) Bayes without Bernoulli: Simple conditions for probabilistically sophisticated choice. J. Econom. Theory 67(1):106–128.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Machina MJ, Siniscalchi M (2014) Ambiguity and ambiguity aversion. Machina M, Viscusi K, eds. Handbook of the Economics of Risk and Uncertainty, Vol. 1, Chap. 13 (North-Holland, Amsterdam), 729–807.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moffatt PG, Sitzia S, Zizzo DJ (2015) Heterogeneity in preferences towards complexity. J. Risk Uncertainty 51(2):147–170.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mullette-Gillman OA, Leong RL, Kurnianingsih YA (2015) Cognitive fatigue destabilizes economic decision making preferences and strategies. PLoS One 10(9):e0138589, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132022.Google Scholar
• Oechssler J, Roomets A (2014) Unintended hedging in ambiguity experiments. Econom. Lett. 122(2):243–246.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Oechssler J, Rau H, Roomets A (2016) Hedging and ambiguity. Working Paper 621, Heidelberg University.Google Scholar
• Regenwetter M, Dana J, Davis-Stober CP (2010) Testing transitivity of preferences on two-alternative forced choice data. Frontiers Psych. 1:1–15.Google Scholar
• Schmeidler D (1989) Subjective probability and expected utility without additivity. Econometrica 57(3):571–587.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sharma T, Vadovic R (2015) Dominated choices. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
• Siniscalchi M (2009) Vector expected utility and attitudes toward variation. Econometrica 77(3):801–855.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Skiadas C (2013) Scale-invariant uncertainty-averse preferences and source-dependent constant relative risk aversion. Theoret. Econom. 8(1):59–93.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Slovic P, Tversky A (1974) Who accepts Savage’s axiom? Behavioral Sci. 19(6):368–373.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sonsino D, Benzion U, Mador G (2002) The complexity effects on choice with uncertainty—Experimental evidence. Econom. J. 112(482):936–965.Google Scholar
• Starmer C (1992) Testing new theories of choice under uncertainty using the common consequence effect. Rev. Econom. Stud. 59(4):813–830.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Starmer C, Sugden R (1991) Does the random-lottery incentive system elicit true preferences? An experimental investigation. Amer. Econom. Rev. 81(4):971–978.Google Scholar
• Stott HP (2006) Cumulative prospect theory’s functional menagerie. J. Risk Uncertainty 32(2):101–130.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tengstam S (2014) Disability and marginal utility of income: Evidence from hypothetical choices. Health Econom. 23(3):268–282.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Trautmann S, Wakker PP (2018) Making the Anscombe–Aumann approach to ambiguity suitable for descriptive applications. J. Risk Uncertainty 56(1):83–116.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Trautmann ST, van de Kuilen G (2015) Ambiguity attitudes. Keren G, Wu G, eds. The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making (John Wiley & Sons, Oxford, UK), 89–116.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
• Von Winterfeldt D, Chung N-K, Luce DR, Cho Y (1997) Tests of consequence monotonicity in decision making under uncertainty. J. Experiment. Psych. Learn. Memory Cognition 23(2):406–426.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wakker PP (2010) Prospect Theory: For Risk and Ambiguity (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wakker PP (2011) Jaffray’s ideas on ambiguity. Theory Decision 71(1):11–22.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wu G, Gonzalez R (1999) Nonlinear decision weights in choice under uncertainty. Management Sci. 45(1):74–85.Link, Google Scholar