Showing 1 - 10 of 18
We investigate whether violations of canonical axioms of choice under risk are mistakes or a manifestation of true … 70% of axiom violations are intentional whereas only 30% are mistakes. On the subject level we can clearly categorize … almost half of our subjects. Among those, roughly 24% are rational expected utility maximizers, 24% make occasional mistakes …
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10014578322
We investigate whether violations of canonical axioms of choice under risk are mistakes or a manifestation of true … 70% of axiom viola-tions are intentional whereas only 30% are mistakes. On the subject level we can clearly categorize … almost half of our subjects. Among those, roughly 24%are rational expected utility maximizers, 24% make occasional mistakes …
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10014556632
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10014425579
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10015204269
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10011482764
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10011486364
So far, "salience theory of choice under risk" has been mainly applied to situations of risk rather than to those of uncertainty. In this paper, we show that salience theory provides the prediction that Allais paradoxes should never occur in the context of uncertainty. A finding which...
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10011919995
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10011646036
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10011549134
Most models of ambiguity aversion satisfy Anscombe-Aumann's Monotonicity axiom. Monotonicity imposes separability of preferences across events that occur with unknown probability. We construct a test of Monotonicity by modifying the Allais paradox to a setting with both subjective and objective...
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10011657339