Uncertainty Equivalents: Testing the Limits of the Independence Axiom
dc.contributor.author | Andreoni, James | |
dc.contributor.author | Sprenger, Charles | |
dc.date | 2011-08-10 | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2012-02-27T16:08:48Z | |
dc.date.available | 2012-02-27T16:08:48Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2012-02-27 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/89964 | |
dc.description.abstract | There is convincing experimental evidence that Expected Utility fails, but when does it fail, how severely, and for what fraction of subjects? We explore these questions using a novel measure we call the uncertainty equivalent. We find Expected Utility performs well away from certainty, but fails near certainty for about 40% of subjects. Comparing non-Expected Utility theories, we strongly reject Prospect Theory probability weighting, we support disappointment aversion if amended to allow violations of stochastic dominance, but find the u-v model of a direct preference for certainty the most parsimonious approach. | en_US |
dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
dc.relation.ispartofseries | 117 | en_US |
dc.subject | uncertainty | en_US |
dc.subject.other | D81, D90 | en_US |
dc.title | Uncertainty Equivalents: Testing the Limits of the Independence Axiom | en_US |
dc.type | Working Paper | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbtoplevel | Social Sciences | |
dc.contributor.affiliationum | International Policy Center (IPC); Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationother | University of California, San Diego | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationother | Stanford University | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationumcampus | Ann Arbor | |
dc.description.bitstreamurl | http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/89964/1/ipc-117-andreoni-sprenger-uncertainty-equivalents-testing-limits-independence-axiom.pdf | |
dc.owningcollname | International Policy Center (IPC) - Working Paper Series |
Files in this item
Remediation of Harmful Language
The University of Michigan Library aims to describe its collections in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in them. We encourage you to Contact Us anonymously if you encounter harmful or problematic language in catalog records or finding aids. More information about our policies and practices is available at Remediation of Harmful Language.
Accessibility
If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.