Abstract
This paper reports on the results of a Monte Carlo investigation into the power of commonly employed procedures for identifying the ‘correct’ preference functional of individuals, and hence for discriminating between the large number of preference functionals now advocated in the theoretical literature. The paper also asks which of two commonly employed experimental procedures might be the most efficient in this respect. The results show that several of the ‘newer’ preference functionals are difficult to distinguish empirically-at least on the basis of conventional experimental tests-and that the Complete ranking experimental design might be better than the Pairwise Choice design. The conclusion of the paper is that more thought should therefore be given to the question of the experimental design.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abdellaoui M., and B. Munier. (1994). “The ‘Closing In’ Method: An Experimental Tool to Investigate Individual Choice Patterns Under Risk.” B. Munier and M. J. Machina (eds.), (1994), Models and Experiments on Risk and Uncertainty. Dordrect/Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 141–156.
Beggs S., S. Cardell, and J. Hausman. (1981). “Assessing the Potential Demand for Electric Cars,” Journal of Econometrics 16, 1–19.
Carbone E., and J. D. Hey. (1994a). “Discriminating Between Preference Functionals: A Preliminary Monte Carlo Study,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 8, 223–242.
Carbone E., and J. D. Hey. (1994b). “Estimations of Expected and non-Expected Utility Preference Functionals Using Complete Ranking Data.” B. Munier and M. J. Machina (eds.), (1994), Models and Experiments on Risk and Uncertainty. Dordrect/Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 119–140.
Carbone E., and J. D. Hey. (1995). “A Comparison of the Estimates of Expected Utility and Non-Expected-Utility Preference Functionals.” Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance Theory 20, 111–133.
Chew S. H. (1983). “A Generalization of the Quasilinear Mean with Applications to the Measurement of Income Inequality and Decision Theory Resolving the Allais Paradox.” Econometrica 51, 1065–1092.
Chew S. H., E. Karni and Z. Safra. (1987). “Risk Aversion in the Theory of Expected Utility with Rank Dependent Probabilities.” Journal of Economic Theory 40, 304–318.
Epstein L. G. (1993). “Behaviour Under Risk: Recent Developments in Theory and Applications.” in Laffont J. (ed.), Advances in Economic Theory: Sixth World Congress, Volume 2, Cambridge University Press.
Gul F. (1991). “A Theory of Disappointment Aversion,” Econometrica, 59, 667–686.
Harless D. W., and C. F. Camerer. (1994). “The Predictive Utility of Generalized Expected Utility Theories,” Econometrica 62, 1251–1290.
Hey J. D., and E. Carbone. (1995). “Stochastic Choice with Deterministic Preferences: An Experimental Investigation,” Economic Letters 47, 161–167.
Hey J. D., and D. Di Cagno. (1990). “Circles and Triangles: An Experimental Estimation of Indifference Lines in the Marschak-Machina Triangle,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 3, 279–306.
Hey J. D., and C. D. Orme. (1994). “Investigating Generalizations of Expected Utility Theory Using Experimental Data,” Econometrica 62, 1291–1326.
Hey J. D., and E. Stazzera. (1989). “Estimation of Indifference Curves in the Marschak-Machina Triangle: A Direct Test of the Fanning-Out Hypothesis,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 2, 239–260.
Loomes G., and R. Sugden. (1995). “Incorporating a Stochastic Element Into Decision Theories,” European Economic Review 39, 641–648.
Machina M. J. (1985). “Stochastic Choice Functions Generated from Deterministic preferences over Lotteries,” Economic Journal 95, 575–594.
Muller W. G., and A. C. M. Ponce de Leon. (1996). “Optimal Design of an Experiment in Economics,” Economic Journal 106, 122–127.
Quiggin J. (1982). “A Theory of Anticipated Utility,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 3, 323–343.
Tversky A., and D. Kahneman. (1992). “Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5, 297–323.
Viscusi W. K. (1989). “Prospective Reference Theory: Towards an Explanation of the Paradoxes,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2, 235–264.
Yaari M. E. (1987). “The Dual Theory of Choice Under Risk,” Econometrica 55, 95–115.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
CARBONE, E. Discriminating Between Preference Functionals: A Monte Carlo Study. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 15, 29–54 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007785820094
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007785820094