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

This paper reports results from a repeated experiment on decision making under risk where subjects must address the same choice problems in several rounds. We investigate how behavior changes in the course of the experiment. The design focuses on choice problems allowing for direct tests of independence and coalescing. We show that inconsistencies in responses as well as violations of independence and coalescing decrease from earlier to later rounds. Our results provide evidence in favor of expected utility in conjunction with the discovered preference hypothesis.

[1]  Glenn W. Harrison,et al.  Expected utility theory and the experiments , 1994 .

[2]  A. Tversky,et al.  Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty , 1992 .

[3]  N. Nicholls,et al.  The impact of statistical learning on violations of the sure-thing principle , 2015 .

[4]  M. Birnbaum,et al.  Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes Tests of Theories of Decision Making: Violations of Branch Independence and Distribution Independence Generic Rank-dependent Utility Generic Analysis of Violations of Branch Independence and Distribution Independence Birnbaum and Mcintosh Model: N , 2022 .

[5]  Glenn W. Harrison,et al.  Expected Utility Theory and the Experimentalists , 1994 .

[6]  Michael H. Birnbaum.  A statistical test of independence in choice data with small samples , 2012 .

[7]  P. Fishburn,et al.  Rank- and sign-dependent linear utility models for finite first-order gambles , 1991 .

[8]  David M. Grether,et al.  The preference reversal phenomenon: Response mode, markets and incentives , 1996 .

[9]  P. Wakker,et al.  Learning in the Allais paradox , 2006 .

[10]  Ken Binmore,et al.  Why Experiment in economics , 1999 .

[11]  John D. Hey.  Does Repetition Improve Consistency? , 2001 .

[12]  Robert Sugden,et al.  Testing for juxtaposition and event-splitting effects , 1993 .

[13]  Robert Sugden,et al.  Do Anomalies Disappear in Repeated Markets , 2002 .

[14]  Michael H. Birnbaum,et al.  Violations of Branch Independence in Choices between Gambles , 1996 .

[15]  Martin Dufwenberg,et al.  Bubbles and Experience: An Experiment , 2005 .

[16]  M. Birnbaum.  True-and-error models violate independence and yet they are testable , 2013, Judgment and Decision Making.

[17]  R. Hertwig,et al.  The description–experience gap in risky choice , 2009, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[18]  C. Seidl,et al.  Reconsidering the common ratio effect: the roles of compound independence, reduction, and coalescing , 2014 .

[19]  Michael H. Birnbaum,et al.  Three New Tests of Independence That Differentiate Models of Risky Decision Making , 2005, Manag. Sci..

[20]  M. Birnbaum,et al.  Evidence against Rank-Dependent Utility Theories: Tests of Cumulative Independence, Interval Independence, Stochastic Dominance, and Transitivity. , 1999, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[21]  Vernon L. Smith,et al.  Theory, Experiment and Economics , 1989 .

[22]  M. Birnbaum.  Causes of Allais common consequence paradoxes: An experimental dissection ☆ , 2004 .

[23]  Gijs van de Kuilen,et al.  Subjective Probability Weighting and the Discovered Preference Hypothesis , 2009 .

[24]  J. Quiggin.  A theory of anticipated utility , 1982 .

[25]  Robert Sugden,et al.  Probability and juxtaposition effects: An experimental investigation of the common ratio effect , 1989 .

[26]  Bruno Jullien,et al.  Ordinal independence in nonlinear utility theory , 1988 .

[27]  Steven J. Humphrey.  Regret aversion or event-splitting effects? more evidence under risk and uncertainty , 1995 .

[28]  M. Birnbaum.  Decision and Choice: Paradoxes of Choice , 2001 .

[29]  Mark Perlman,et al.  The Rational Foundations of Economic Behaviour , 1996 .

[30]  Steven J. Humphrey.  Non‐transitive Choice: Event‐Splitting Effects or Framing Effects? , 2001 .

[31]  Charles R. Plott,et al.  Rational Individual Behavior in Markets and Social Choice Processes: the Discovered Preference Hypothesis , 1993 .

[32]  M. Birnbaum,et al.  Testing independence conditions in the presence of errors and splitting effects , 2017 .

[33]  George Wu.  An empirical test of ordinal independence , 1994 .

[34]  C. Plott,et al.  Exchange Economies and Loss Exposure: Experiments Exploring Prospect Theory and Competitive Equilibria in Market Environments , 1997 .

[35]  C. Starmer,et al.  Testing New Theories of Choice under Uncertainty using the Common Consequence Effect , 1992 .

[36]  John Quiggin,et al.  Risk Perception And The Analysis Of Risk Attitudes , 1981 .

[37]  A. Tversky,et al.  An axiomatization of cumulative prospect theory , 1993 .

[38]  R. Duncan Luce,et al.  Rank- and sign-dependent linear utility models for binary gambles , 1991 .

[39]  M. Birnbaum,et al.  Testing Descriptive Utility Theories: Violations of Stochastic Dominance and Cumulative Independence , 1998 .