Tests of 'Fanning Out' of Indifference Curves: Results from
In earlier research, Allais-type violations of the independence axiom of expected utility theory were reported with rats choosing over positively valued payoffs. In extending this research, animals' choices over losses are examined, testing for: 1. standard Allais-type common ratio effect viola...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | The American economic review 1990-09, Vol.80 (4), p.912 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 912 |
| container_title | The American economic review |
| container_volume | 80 |
| creator | Kagel, John H MacDonald, Don N Battalio, Raymond C |
| description | In earlier research, Allais-type violations of the independence axiom of expected utility theory were reported with rats choosing over positively valued payoffs. In extending this research, animals' choices over losses are examined, testing for: 1. standard Allais-type common ratio effect violations of expected utility theory, and 2. fanning out of indifference curves for random prospects, tests of Machina's hypothesis II over previously unexplored areas of the unit probability triangle. A parallel series of experiments using human subjects choosing over real losses is also conducted. For both rats and people, classic Allais-type violations of expected utility theory are found. In addition, there is a systematic failure of the fanning out hypothesis in the southeast corner of the unit probability triangle in the case of losses, contrary to Machina's hypothesis. Thus, the fanning out hypothesis cannot provide a satisfactory explanation of behavioral deviations from expected utility theory. |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_233024873</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>127833</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_journals_2330248733</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpjYuA0tDQx0TW3tDBkYeA0MDAw0rUwsjDiYOAqLs4yAPENzTkZrENSi0uKFfLTFNTdEvPyMvPSFfxLS9RBAp55KZlpaalFqXnJqQrOpUVlqcVWCkGpxaU5QA1pRfm5PAysaYk5xam8UJqbQcnNNcTZQ7egKL-wFGhufFZ-aVEeUCreyNjYwMjEwtzYmChFAPDMNvc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>233024873</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Tests of 'Fanning Out' of Indifference Curves: Results from</title><source>EBSCOhost Business Source Complete</source><source>JSTOR</source><creator>Kagel, John H ; MacDonald, Don N ; Battalio, Raymond C</creator><creatorcontrib>Kagel, John H ; MacDonald, Don N ; Battalio, Raymond C</creatorcontrib><description>In earlier research, Allais-type violations of the independence axiom of expected utility theory were reported with rats choosing over positively valued payoffs. In extending this research, animals' choices over losses are examined, testing for: 1. standard Allais-type common ratio effect violations of expected utility theory, and 2. fanning out of indifference curves for random prospects, tests of Machina's hypothesis II over previously unexplored areas of the unit probability triangle. A parallel series of experiments using human subjects choosing over real losses is also conducted. For both rats and people, classic Allais-type violations of expected utility theory are found. In addition, there is a systematic failure of the fanning out hypothesis in the southeast corner of the unit probability triangle in the case of losses, contrary to Machina's hypothesis. Thus, the fanning out hypothesis cannot provide a satisfactory explanation of behavioral deviations from expected utility theory.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0002-8282</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1944-7981</identifier><identifier>CODEN: AENRAA</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Nashville: American Economic Association</publisher><subject>Animals ; Behavior ; Choices ; Economic models ; Economic theory ; Expected utility ; Human capital ; Human subjects ; Hypotheses ; Losses ; Probability ; Risk management ; Statistical analysis ; Studies ; Violations</subject><ispartof>The American economic review, 1990-09, Vol.80 (4), p.912</ispartof><rights>Copyright American Economic Association Sep 1990</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>315,781,785</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kagel, John H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MacDonald, Don N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Battalio, Raymond C</creatorcontrib><title>Tests of 'Fanning Out' of Indifference Curves: Results from</title><title>The American economic review</title><description>In earlier research, Allais-type violations of the independence axiom of expected utility theory were reported with rats choosing over positively valued payoffs. In extending this research, animals' choices over losses are examined, testing for: 1. standard Allais-type common ratio effect violations of expected utility theory, and 2. fanning out of indifference curves for random prospects, tests of Machina's hypothesis II over previously unexplored areas of the unit probability triangle. A parallel series of experiments using human subjects choosing over real losses is also conducted. For both rats and people, classic Allais-type violations of expected utility theory are found. In addition, there is a systematic failure of the fanning out hypothesis in the southeast corner of the unit probability triangle in the case of losses, contrary to Machina's hypothesis. Thus, the fanning out hypothesis cannot provide a satisfactory explanation of behavioral deviations from expected utility theory.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Behavior</subject><subject>Choices</subject><subject>Economic models</subject><subject>Economic theory</subject><subject>Expected utility</subject><subject>Human capital</subject><subject>Human subjects</subject><subject>Hypotheses</subject><subject>Losses</subject><subject>Probability</subject><subject>Risk management</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Violations</subject><issn>0002-8282</issn><issn>1944-7981</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1990</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNpjYuA0tDQx0TW3tDBkYeA0MDAw0rUwsjDiYOAqLs4yAPENzTkZrENSi0uKFfLTFNTdEvPyMvPSFfxLS9RBAp55KZlpaalFqXnJqQrOpUVlqcVWCkGpxaU5QA1pRfm5PAysaYk5xam8UJqbQcnNNcTZQ7egKL-wFGhufFZ-aVEeUCreyNjYwMjEwtzYmChFAPDMNvc</recordid><startdate>19900901</startdate><enddate>19900901</enddate><creator>Kagel, John H</creator><creator>MacDonald, Don N</creator><creator>Battalio, Raymond C</creator><general>American Economic Association</general><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19900901</creationdate><title>Tests of 'Fanning Out' of Indifference Curves: Results from</title><author>Kagel, John H ; MacDonald, Don N ; Battalio, Raymond C</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_2330248733</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1990</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Behavior</topic><topic>Choices</topic><topic>Economic models</topic><topic>Economic theory</topic><topic>Expected utility</topic><topic>Human capital</topic><topic>Human subjects</topic><topic>Hypotheses</topic><topic>Losses</topic><topic>Probability</topic><topic>Risk management</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Violations</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kagel, John H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MacDonald, Don N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Battalio, Raymond C</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>The American economic review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kagel, John H</au><au>MacDonald, Don N</au><au>Battalio, Raymond C</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Tests of 'Fanning Out' of Indifference Curves: Results from</atitle><jtitle>The American economic review</jtitle><date>1990-09-01</date><risdate>1990</risdate><volume>80</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>912</spage><pages>912-</pages><issn>0002-8282</issn><eissn>1944-7981</eissn><coden>AENRAA</coden><abstract>In earlier research, Allais-type violations of the independence axiom of expected utility theory were reported with rats choosing over positively valued payoffs. In extending this research, animals' choices over losses are examined, testing for: 1. standard Allais-type common ratio effect violations of expected utility theory, and 2. fanning out of indifference curves for random prospects, tests of Machina's hypothesis II over previously unexplored areas of the unit probability triangle. A parallel series of experiments using human subjects choosing over real losses is also conducted. For both rats and people, classic Allais-type violations of expected utility theory are found. In addition, there is a systematic failure of the fanning out hypothesis in the southeast corner of the unit probability triangle in the case of losses, contrary to Machina's hypothesis. Thus, the fanning out hypothesis cannot provide a satisfactory explanation of behavioral deviations from expected utility theory.</abstract><cop>Nashville</cop><pub>American Economic Association</pub></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0002-8282 |
| ispartof | The American economic review, 1990-09, Vol.80 (4), p.912 |
| issn | 0002-8282 1944-7981 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_233024873 |
| source | EBSCOhost Business Source Complete; JSTOR |
| subjects | Animals Behavior Choices Economic models Economic theory Expected utility Human capital Human subjects Hypotheses Losses Probability Risk management Statistical analysis Studies Violations |
| title | Tests of 'Fanning Out' of Indifference Curves: Results from |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-17T09%3A38%3A13IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Tests%20of%20'Fanning%20Out'%20of%20Indifference%20Curves:%20Results%20from&rft.jtitle=The%20American%20economic%20review&rft.au=Kagel,%20John%20H&rft.date=1990-09-01&rft.volume=80&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=912&rft.pages=912-&rft.issn=0002-8282&rft.eissn=1944-7981&rft.coden=AENRAA&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E127833%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=233024873&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |