Abstract:According to classical utility theory the valuation of any lottery should depend only on its outcomes and their respective probabilities, and should not be affected by the nature, complexity and structure of the chance mechanism. Previous research has documented systematic violations of this principle. For example, most subjects prefer lotteries in which the payoffs are contingent on the joint occurrence of multiple (high probability) events to simple lotteries, and lotteries in which the earlier stages offer higher probabilities than the later stages. We review the various violations of this principle and suggest a classification into two major types associated with misunderstanding of chance mechanisms and attitude towards the chance mechanism and process. In the present study 40 subjects were presented with 30 pairs of binary gambles. In any given pair the lotteries had identical outcomes and equal ‘reduced’ probabilities (and thus equal expected values). However, the chance mechanisms varied along a variety of factors such as the size of the sample space, the number of stages, temporal ordering, order of probabilities, their transparency and time constraints. Half the subjects saw lotteries involving gains and the other half considered only losses. After choosing one lottery in each pair, the subjects were asked to explain and justify their choices. The findings revealed systematic violations of the reducibility principle: subjects displayed a preference for lotteries with larger sample spaces, and for lotteries that allow quicker resolutions in the earlier stages. A clear distinction between some patterns of preferences in the gains and loss domains was revealed. In gambles involving gains subjects preferred to have the highest probability on the first stage (and the lowest probability on the last stage), but displayed the opposite preferences for losses. A content analysis of the subjects' stated reasons for their choices identified eight major categories. The most frequently invoked were hope, fun, simplicity, stress and time. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

A Test of Diminishing Marginal Value

Assessing “Economic Value”

My Views Conserning Marginal Utility

Intertemporal Choice and the Cross-Sectional Variance of Marginal Utility

Some Reflections on Utility

Selling Creates A Loss While Buying Generates A Gain: Capturing the Implicit Irrational Bias by the Iat Method

A Better Test of Choice Overload

Common Value Experimentation.

Assessment of Attribute Importances and Consumer Utility Functions: Von Neumann-Morgenstern Theory Applied to Consumer Behavior

New developments in revealed preference theory: decisions under risk, uncertainty, and intertemporal choice

Asset Demand Based Tests of Expected Utility Maximization

A Non-Parametric Test of Risk Aversion

Temptation: Immediacy and certainty

What Are Asset Demand Tests of Expected Utility Really Testing?*

The same but different: an empirical investigation of the reducibility principle

Evidence of general economic principles of bargaining and trade from 2,000 classroom experiments

Evaluating Marginal Policy Changes and the Average Effect of Treatment for Individuals at the Margin

Time will tell - Recovering Preferences when Choices are Noisy

Does the Fundamental Transformation Deter Trade? An Experiment

Relative Net Utility and the Saint Petersburg Paradox

No evidence for loss aversion disappearance and reversal in Walasek and Stewart (2015).