The predictive utility of generalized expected utility theories

Recent experimental choice studies compare expected utility with competing theories of decision-making under risk. Formal tests used to judge the theories usually count the number of consistent responses, ignoring systematic variation in inconsistent responses. A maximum-likelihood estimation method is developed that extracts more information from the data and enables one to judge the predictive utility--fit and parsimony--of utility theories. Analyses of twenty-three data sets suggest a menu of theories that sacrifice the least parsimony for the biggest improvement in fit. The menu is mixed fanning, prospect theory, expected utility, and expected value. Copyright 1994 by The Econometric Society.

[1]  I. Erev,et al.  Comonotonic independence: The critical test between classical and rank-dependent utility theories , 1994 .

[2]  Colin Camerer,et al.  Violations of the betweenness axiom and nonlinearity in probability , 1994 .

[3]  Mahmoud A. El-Gamal,et al.  Uncovering Behavioral Strategies: Likelihood-Based Experimental Data Mining , 1993 .

[4]  B. Sopher,et al.  A test of generalized expected utility theory , 1993 .

[5]  J. Quiggin.  Testing between alternative models of choice under uncertainty—Comment , 1993 .

[6]  V. Smith.  Monetary Rewards and Decision Cost in Experimental Economics: An Extension , 1993 .

[7]  David W Harless.  Experimental tests of prospective reference theory , 1993 .

[8]  Larry G. Epstein.  Advances in Economic Theory: Behavior under risk: recent developments in theory and applications , 1993 .

[9]  William S. Neilson.  A mixed fan hypothesis and its implications for behavior toward risk , 1992 .

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

[11]  David W Harless,et al.  Predictions about indifference curves inside the unit triangle: A test of variants of expected utility theory , 1992 .

[12]  William S. Neilson.  Some mixed results on boundary effects , 1992 .

[13]  R. McKelvey,et al.  An experimental study of the centipede game , 1992 .

[14]  M. Aitkin.  Posterior Bayes Factors , 1991 .

[15]  Faruk Gul.  A Theory of Disappointment Aversion , 1991 .

[16]  Reinhard Selten,et al.  Properties of a measure of predictive success , 1991 .

[17]  Larry G. Epstein,et al.  MIXTURE SYMMETRY AND QUADRATIC UTILITY , 1991 .

[18]  John D. Hey,et al.  Circles and triangles an experimental estimation of indifference lines in the marschak‐machina triangle , 1990 .

[19]  D. Prelec.  A “Pseudo-endowment” effect, and its implications for some recent nonexpected utility models , 1990 .

[20]  John H. Kagel,et al.  Testing between alternative models of choice under uncertainty: Some initial results , 1990 .

[21]  Larry G. Epstein,et al.  A unifying approach to axiomatic non-expected utility theories , 1989 .

[22]  W. Viscusi.  Prospective reference theory: Toward an explanation of the paradoxes , 1989 .

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

[24]  S. Chew.  Axiomatic utility theories with the betweenness property , 1989 .

[25]  Uzi Segal.  Anticipated utility: A measure representation approach , 1989 .

[26]  Colin Camerer.  An experimental test of several generalized utility theories , 1989 .

[27]  John Conlisk,et al.  Three Variants on the Allais Example , 1989 .

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

[29]  Peter C. Fishburn,et al.  Nonlinear preference and utility theory , 1988 .

[30]  Rakesh K. Sarin,et al.  Lottery dependent utility , 1987 .

[31]  M. Machina.  Choice under Uncertainty: Problems Solved and Unsolved , 1987 .

[32]  C. S. Hong,et al.  Risk aversion in the theory of expected utility with rank dependent probabilities , 1987 .

[33]  Reinhard Selten,et al.  Laboratory experimentation in economics: Equity and coalition bargaining in experimental three-person games , 1987 .

[34]  M. Yaari.  The Dual Theory of Choice under Risk , 1987 .

[35]  Eddie Dekel.  An axiomatic characterization of preferences under uncertainty: Weakening the independence axiom , 1986 .

[36]  C. S. Hong,et al.  Empirical Tests of Weighted Utility Theory , 1986 .

[37]  Mark J. Machina,et al.  Stochastic Choice Functions Generated from Deterministic Preferences over Lotteries , 1985 .

[38]  Stephen J. Brown,et al.  Model Selection When There Is "Minimal" Prior Information , 1984 .

[39]  P. Fishburn.  Transitive measurable utility , 1983 .

[40]  S. Chew.  A Generalization of the Quasilinear Mean with Applications to the Measurement of Income Inequality and Decision Theory Resolving the Allais Paradox , 1983 .

[41]  M. Machina.  "Expected Utility" Analysis without the Independence Axiom , 1982 .

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

[43]  P. Fishburn.  Nontransitive measurable utility , 1982 .

[44]  D. Spiegelhalter,et al.  Bayes Factors and Choice Criteria for Linear Models , 1980 .

[45]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect Theory : An Analysis of Decision under Risk Author ( s ) : , 2007 .

[46]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: analysis of decision under risk , 1979 .

[47]  G. Schwarz.  Estimating the Dimension of a Model , 1978 .

[48]  H. Akaike,et al.  Information Theory and an Extension of the Maximum Likelihood Principle , 1973 .

[49]  P. Slovic,et al.  Reversals of preference between bids and choices in gambling decisions. , 1971 .

[50]  M. Allais.  Le comportement de l'homme rationnel devant le risque : critique des postulats et axiomes de l'ecole americaine , 1953 .

[51]  G. Stigler.  The Development of Utility Theory. II , 1950, Journal of Political Economy.

[52]  G. Stigler.  The Development of Utility Theory. I , 1950, Journal of Political Economy.

[53]  J. Marschak.  Rational Behavior, Uncertain Prospects, and Measurable Utility (1950) , 1950 .