Advertisement

Theory and Decision

, Volume 85, Issue 3–4, pp 321–331 | Cite as

Violations of betweenness and choice shifts in groups

  • Pavlo R. Blavatskyy
  • Francesco Feri
Article
  • 44 Downloads

Abstract

In decision theory, the betweenness axiom postulates that a decision maker who chooses an alternative A over another alternative B must also choose any probability mixture of A and B over B itself and can never choose a probability mixture of A and B over A itself. The betweenness axiom is a weaker version of the independence axiom of expected utility theory. Numerous empirical studies documented systematic violations of the betweenness axiom in revealed individual choice under uncertainty. This paper shows that these systematic violations can be linked to another behavioral regularity—choice shifts in a group decision making. Choice shifts are observed if an individual faces the same decision problem but makes a different choice when deciding alone and in a group.

Keywords

Betweenness Choice shift Quasi-concave preference Quasi-convex preference Risky shift Cautious shift Expected utility theory 

References

  1. Abdellaoui, M. (2002). A genuine rank-dependent generalization of the von Neumann–Morgenstern expected utility theorem. Econometrica, 70(2), 717–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allais, M. (1953). Le Comportement de l’Homme Rationnel devant le Risque: Critique des Postulates et Axiomes de l’Ecole Américaine. Econometrica, 21, 503–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker, R. J., Laury, S. K., & Williams, A. W. (2008). Comparing small-group and individual behavior in lottery-choice experiments. Southern Economic Journal, 75(2), 367–382.Google Scholar
  4. Bateman, I., & Munro, A. (2005). An experiment on risky choice amongst households. Economic Journal, 115, C176–C189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Becker, G., DeGroot, M., & Marschak, J. (1963). An experimental study of some stochastic models for wagers. Behavioral Studies, 3, 199–202.Google Scholar
  6. Bernasconi, M. (1994). Nonlinear preference and two-stage lotteries: theories and evidence. Economic Journal, 104, 54–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blavatskyy, P. (2006). Violations of betweenness or random errors? Economics Letters, 91, 34–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blavatskyy, P. (2013a). Which decision theory? Economics Letters, 120(1), 40–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blavatskyy, P. (2013b). Reverse Allais paradox. Economics Letters, 119(1), 60–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bone, J., Hey, J., & Suckling, J. (1999). Are groups more (or less) consistent than individuals? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 8, 63–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bourguignon, F., & Chiappori, P.-A. (1992). Collective models of household behavior. European Economic Review, 36, 355–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Camerer, C. (1989). An experimental test of several generalized utility theories. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2, 61–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Camerer, C., & Ho, T. (1994). Violations of the betweenness axiom and nonlinearity in probability. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 8, 167–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chew, S. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chew, S.-H., & Waller, W. (1986). Empirical tests of weighted utility theory. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 30, 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Conlisk, J. (1987). Verifying the betweenness axiom with questionnaire evidence, or not: take your pick. Economics Letters, 25, 319–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Crawford, V. (1990). Equilibrium without independence. Journal of Economic Theory, 50, 127–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Davis, J. H., Kameda, T., & Stasson, M. F. (1992). Group risk taking: Selected topics. In J. F. Yates (Ed.), Risk-taking behavior (pp. 163–181). New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  19. Dekel, E. (1986). An axiomatic characterization of preferences under uncertainty. Journal of Economic Theory, 40, 304–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eliaz, K., Ray, D., & Razin, R. (2006). Choice shift in groups: A decision—theoretic basis. The American Economic Review, 96(4), 1321–1332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gigliotti, G., & Sopher, B. (1993). A test of generalized expected utility theory. Theory and Decision, 35, 75–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gul, F. (1991). A theory of disappointment aversion. Econometrica, 59, 667–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., Elisabet Rutström, E., & Tarazona-Gómez, M. (2013). Preferences over social risk. Oxford Economic Papers, 65(1), 25–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kerr, N. L., MacCoun, R. J., & Kramer, G. P. (1996). Bias in judgement: comparing individuals and groups. Psychological Review, 103, 687–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Machina, M. (1982). “Expected utility” analysis without the independence axiom. Econometrica, 50(2), 277–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Masclet, D., Loheac, Y., Laurent, D., & Colombier, N. (2009). Group and individual risk preferences: A lottery-choice experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 70, 470–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nordhoy, F. (1962). Group interaction in decision-making under risk. Unpublished PaperGoogle Scholar
  29. Prelec, D. (1990). A ‘pseudo-endowment’ effect, and its implications for some recent nonexpected utility models. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 3, 247–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Quiggin, J. (1981). Risk perception and risk aversion among Australian farmers. Australian Journal of Agricultural Recourse Economics, 25, 160–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rockenbach, B., Sadrieh, A., & Mathauschek, B. (2007). Teams take the better risks. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organisation, 63, 412–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shupp, R., & Williams, A. W. (2008). Risk preference differentials of small groups and individuals. The Economic Journal, 118, 258–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Starmer, C. H. (2000). Developments in non-expected utility theory: the hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk. Journal of Economic Literature, 38, 332–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stoner, J. A. F. (1961). A comparison of individual individual and group decisions involving risk. Unpublished PaperGoogle Scholar
  35. Stoner, J. A. F. (1968). Risky and cautious shifts in group decisions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 4(4), 442–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wakker, P. (2010). Prospect theory: for risk and ambiguity. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wallach, M. A., Kogan, N., & Bem, D. J. (1962). Group influence on individual risk-taking. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65, 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wallach, M. A., Kogan, N., & Bem, D. J. (1964). Diffusion of responsibility and level of risk-taking in groups. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68, 263–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wu, G., & Gonzalez, R. (1996). Curvature of the probability weighting function. Management Science, 42, 1676–1690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Montpellier Business School, Montpellier Research in ManagementMontpellier Cedex 4France
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsRoyal Holloway University of LondonEghamUK

Personalised recommendations