On between-subjects versus within-subjects comparisons in testing utility theory

Abstract Empirical studies of expected utility theory often employ a between-subjects design. This practice has been recently criticized by J. C. Hershey and P. J. H. Schoemaker (1980 , Organizational Behavior and Human Performance , 25 , 395–418). The present paper provides a critical analysis of the controversial issues concerning the use of between-subjects vs within-subjects comparisons. It is claimed that the choice of experimental design should be determined, among other things, by theoretical aspects (e.g., the interpretation of utility theory) and the nature of the scientific problem. Following, we present relevant psychological considerations and conclude that, in the context of testing utility theory, a between-subjects design will often be more desirable. We then describe three different hypotheses that a researcher may be interested in testing, and identify the appropriate design for testing each of these hypotheses. The relationships between the different hypotheses are discussed. We apply our framework to reanalyze the reflection effect and compare it with the analysis proposed by Hershey and Schoemaker (1980) . Methodological implications for future research are briefly discussed.