Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
SpringerLink
Log in

Rationality for Economists?

  • Chapter
Elicitation of Preferences

Abstract

Rationality is a complex behavioral theory that can be parsed into statements about preferences, perceptions, and process. This paper looks at the evidence on rationality that is provided by behavioral experiments, and argues that most cognitive anomalies operate through errors in perception that arise from the way information is stored, retrieved, and processed, or through errors in process that lead to formulation of choice problems as cognitive tasks that are inconsistent at least with rationality narrowly defined. The paper discusses how these cognitive anomalies influence economic behavior and measurement, and their implications for economic analysis.

This paper is dedicated to the memory of Amos Tversky, whose brilliant life profoundly influenced psychology and economics. In the subject known as Behavioral Decision Theory, Tversky’s hand appears everywhere, through his papers, and through his ingenious and definitive experiments that have made clear the importance of heuristics and judgment in human cognition. He will be counted among the great minds of the 20th Century. It was a delight and an education to have been his friend.

Early versions of this paper were presented at the European Meetings of the Econometric Society, Istanbul, 1996, and at the NSF Symposium on Eliciting Preferences, University of California, Berkeley, July 1997. I have benefitted from discussions and comments from Moshe Ben-Akiva, Baruch Fischhoff, Tommy Garling, Danny Kahneman, Mark Machina, Charles Manski, John Payne, and Drazen Prelec. Research support from the E. Morris Cox Fund, and assistance for preparation of the paper from the Santa Fe Institute, are gratefully acknowledged.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Ajzen, I. (1987). “Attitudes, Traits, and Actions: Dispositional Prediction of Behavior in Personality and Social Psychology.” In L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 20, pp. 1–63. San Diego: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Allais, A. (1953). “Le Comportement de l’Homme Rationel Devant le Risque, Critique des Postulates et Axioms de l’Ecole americaine,” Econometrica 21, 503–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anslie, G. (1982). “Beyond Microeconomics: Conflict among Interests in a Multiple Self as a Determinant of Value.” In J. Elster (ed.), The Multiple Self. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K. (1951). “Alternative Approaches to the Theory of Choice in Risk-Taking Situations,” Econometrica 19, 404–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron (1994). “Nonconsequentialist Decisions,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 17, 1–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, J. (1997). “Biases in the Quantitative Measurement of Values for Public Decisions,” Psychological Bulletin 122, 72–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. (1993). “The Economic Way of Looking at Behavior,” Journal of Political Economy, 101, 385–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernoulli, D. (1738). “Specimen Theoriae Novae th Mensura Sortis,” Commentarii Academiae Sciendarum Imperiales Petropolitanae 5, 71–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, R. and T. Heberlein. (1979). “Measuring Values of Extra-Market Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 61, 926–930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, P. (1972). “Estimating Willingness to Pay: An Experiment,” European Economic Review 3, 111–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, K. (1989). “Commodity Specification and the Framing of Contingent-Valuation Questions,” Land Economics 65, 57–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, K., R. Bishop, and M. Welsh. (1985). “Starting Point Bias in Contingent Valuation Bidding Games,” Land Economics 61, 188–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, K., M. Welsh, and R. Bishop. (1993). “The Role of Question Order and Respondent Experience in Contingent-Valuation Studies,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 25, (Part 2), S80 - S99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, C. (1987). “Do Biases in Probability Judgment Matter in Markets? Experimental Evidence,” American Economic Review 77, 981–997.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, C. (1998). “Progress in Behavioral Game Theory,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson, R. et al. (1994). “Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods,” University of California, San Diego Department of Economics Working Paper 94–07.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, T. and D. Huppert. (1991). “Referendum Contingent Valuation Estimates: Sensitivity to the Assignment of Offered Values,” Journal of the American Statistical Association 86, 910–918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chipman, J. (1960). “The Foundations of Utility,” Econometrica 28, 193–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coupey, E. (1994). “Restructuring: Constructive Processing of Information Displays in Consumer Choice.” Journal of Consumer Research 21, 83–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, D. and P. Suppes. (1957). Decision Making. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deaton, A. and J. Muellbauer. (1980). Economics and Consumer Behavior. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Debreu, G. (1959). Theory of Value. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delquie, P. (1993). “Inconsistent Trade-offs between Attributes: New Evidence in Preference Assessment Biases,” Management Science 39, 1382–1395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desvousges, W., R. Johnson, R. Dunford, K. Boyle, S. Hudson, and N. Wilson. (1992). Measuring Nonuse Damages using Contingent Valuation: An Experimental Evaluation of Accuracy. Research Triangle, NC: RTI Monograph 93–1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, P. and J. Hausman. (1994). “Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better Than No Number?” Journal of Economic Perspectives 8, 45–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, I. (1930). The Theory of Interest. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischoff, B., N. Welch, and S. Frederick. (1999). “Construal Processes in Preference Assessment,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, this issue.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank, R. (1992). “The Role of Moral Sentiments in the Theory of Intertemporal Choice.” In G. Loewenstein and J. Elster (eds.), Choice over Time. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank, R. (1990). “Rethinking Rational Choice.” In R. Friedland and A. Robertson (eds.), Beyond the Marketplace: Rethinking Economy and Society, pp. 53–87. Sociology and Economics: Controversy and Integration Series. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fredrickson, B. and D. Kahneman. (1993). “Duration Neglect in Retrospective Evaluations of Affective Episodes,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65, 45–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. and L. Savage. (1948). “The Utility Analysis of Choices Involving Risk,” Journal of Political Economy 56, 279–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garling, T. (1992). “The Importance of Routines for the Performance of Everyday Activities,” Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 33, 170–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garling, T. and R. Gillholm. (1998). “When Do Stated Preferences ( SP) Predict Actual Behavior?” Working Paper, Goteborg University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gourville, J. (1996). “Pennies a Day: Increasing Consumer Compliance Through Temporal Re-Framing,” Harvard University Working Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, D., K. Jacowitz, D. Kahneman, and D. McFadden. (1998). “Referendum Contingent Valuation, Anchoring, and Willingness to Pay for Public Goods.” Energy and Resources Journal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grether, D. and C. Plott. (1979). “Economic Theory of Choice and the Preference Reversal Phenomena,” American Economic Review 69, 623–638.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, G. (1992). “Valuing Public Goods with the Contingent Valuation Method: A Critique,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 23, 248–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrnstein, R. and D. Prelec. (1991). “Melioration: A Theory of Distributed Choice,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 5, 137–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hertzog, R. and R. Wallace. (1996). “Measures of Cognitive Functioning in the AHEAD Study,” Journal of Gerontology 52B, 37–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hildreth, C. (1974). “Ventures, Bets, and Initial Prospects.” In M. Balch et al. (eds.), Essays on Economic Behavior Under Uncertainty, pp. 99–122. Amsterdam: North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoch, S. (1991). “Time-Consistent Preferences and Consumer Self-Control,” Journal of Consumer Research 17, 492–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, T. and R. Kramer. (1995). “An Independent Sample Test of Yea-Saying and Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous-Choice Contingent Valuation,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29, 121–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, J., J. Payne, and C. Puto. (1982). “Adding Asymmetricaly Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis,” Journal of Consumer Research 9, 90–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurd, M. (1999). “Anchoring and Acquiescence Bias in Measuring Assets in Household Surveys,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19, 111–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurd, M., D. McFadden, H. Chand, L. Gan, A. Merrill, and M. Roberts. (1998). “Consumption and Savings Balances of the Elderly: Experimental Evidence on Survey Response Bias,” in D. Wise (ed.) Frontiers in the Economics of Aging 353–387, University of Chicago Press: Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchinson, G., S. Chilton, and J. Davis. (1995). “Measuring Non-Use Value of Environmental Goods Using the Contingent Valuation Method: Problems of Information and Cognition and the Application of Cognitive Questionnaire Design Methods,” Journal of Agricultural Economics 46, 97–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., D. Fredrickson, C. Schreiber, and D. Redelmeier. (1993). “When More Pain Is Preferred to Less,” Psychological Science 4, 401–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. and J. Knetsch. (1992). “Valuing Public Goods: The Purchase of Moral Satisfaction,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22, 57–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., J. Knetsch, and R. Thaler. (1990). “Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem,” Journal of Political Economy 98, 1325–1348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., J. Knetsch, and R. Thaler. (1991). “The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 5, 193–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., I. Ritov, and D. Schkade. (1998). “Economists Have Preferences, Psychologists Have

    Google Scholar 

  • Attitudes: An Analysis of Dollar Responses to Public Issues,“ Princeton University Working Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., P. Slovic, and A. Tversky (eds.) (1982). Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky. (1972). “Subjective Probability: A Judgment of Representativeness,” Cognitive Psychology 3, 430–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky. (1973). “On the Psychology of Prediction,” Psychological Review 80, 237–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky. (1979). “Intuitive Prediction: Biases and Corrective Procedures,” Studies in Management Science 12, 313–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky. (1979a). “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decisions Under Risk,” Econometrica 47, 263–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky. (1982). “On the Study of Statistical Institutions,” Cognition 11, 123–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky. (1984). “Choices, Values, and Frames,” American Psychologist 39, 341–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keynes, J. (1921). A Treatise on Probability. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight, F. (1921). Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit. New York: Houghton-Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larrick (1993). Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowenstein, G. (1988). “Frames of Mind in Intertemporal Choice,” Management Science 34, 200–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowenstein, G. (1996). “Out of Control: Visceral Influences on Behavior,” Organizational Behavior and Decision Processes 65, 272–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowenstein, G. and D. Schkade. (1998). “Wouldn’t It Be Nice? Predicting Future Feelings.” In E. Diener, N. Schwartz, and D. Kahneman (eds.), Hedonic Psychology: Scientific Approaches to Enjoyment, Suffering, and Well-Being. New York: Russell Sage Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, R. (1987). “Adaptive Behavior and Economic Theory.” In R. Hogarth and M. Reder (eds.), Rational Choice: The Contrast between Economics and Psychology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machina, M. (1989). “Dynamic Consistency and Non-Expected Utility Models of Choice Under Uncertainty,” Journal of Economic Literature 32, 1622–1668.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marschak, M. (1950). “Rational Behavior, Uncertain Prospects, and Measurable Utility,” Econometrica 18, 111–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, D. (1974). “On Some Facets of Betting.” In M. Balch et al. (eds.), Essays on Economic Behavior Under Uncertainty, pp. 126–31. Amsterdam, North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, D. (1981). “Econometric Models of Probabilistic Choice.” In C. Manski and D. McFadden (eds.), Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Econometric Applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, D. (1994). “Contingent Valuation and Social Choice,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76, 689–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, D. (1997). “Computing Willingness-to-Pay in Random Utility Models.” In R. Hartman and J. Moore (eds.), Essays in Honor of John Chipman, forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menger, K. (1934). “Das Unsicherheitsmoment in der Wertlehre betrachtungen im Anschluss an das sogenannte Petersburger Spiel,” Zeitschrift fuir Nationalokonomis, Band V, Heft 4, pp. 459–485.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papandreou, A. (1960). “Economics and the Social Sciences,” Economic Journal 60, 715–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne, J., J. Bettman, and E. Johnson. (1992). “Behavioral Decision Research: A Constructive Process Perspective,” Annual Review of Psychology 43, 87–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne, J., J. Bettman, and D. Schkade. (1999). “Measuring Constructed Preferences: Towards a Building Code,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19, 243–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poulton, E. (1989). Bias in Quantifying Judgment. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poulton, E. (1994). Behavioral Decision Theory: A New Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Prelec, D. (1991). “Values and Principles: Some Limitations On Traditional Economic Analysis.” In A. Etzioni and P. Lawrence (eds.), Perspectives on Socioeconomics. London: M. E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prelec, D. and G. Lowenstein. (1997). “The Red and the Black: Mental Accounting of Savings and Debt,” MIT Working Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quattrone, G. and A. Tversky. (1986). “Self-Deception and the Voter’s Illusion.” In J. Elster (ed.), The Multiple Self. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabin, M. (1996). “Psychology and Economics,” Journal of Economic Literature, forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsey, F. (1931). “Truth and Probability,” In The Foundations of Mathematics and Other Logical Essays, Paul, Trench, Trubner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, T. and R. Thaler. (1988). “The Relevance of Quasi-Rationality in Competitive Markets.” In D. Bell, H. Raiffa, and A. Tversky (eds.), Decision Making: Descriptive, Normative, and Prescriptive Interactions. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, W. and R. Zeckhauser. (1988). “Status Quo Bias in Decision Making,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, 7–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schkade, D. and J. Payne. (1994). “How People Respond to Contingent Valuation Questions: A Verbal Protocol Analysis of Willingness to Pay for an Environmental Regulation,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26, 88–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seip, K. and J. Strand. (1992). “Willingness to Pay for Environmental Goods in Norway: A Contingent Valuation Study with Real Payment,” Environmental and Resource Economics 2, 91–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shafir, E. and A. Tversky. (1992). “Thinking Through Uncertainty: Nonconsequential Reasoning and Choice,” Cognitive Psychology 24, 449–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silberman, J. and M. Klock. (1989). “The Behavior of Respondents in Contingent Valuation: Evidence on Starting Bids,” Journal of Behavioral Economics, 18, 51–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. (1959). “Theories of Decision-Making in Economics and Behavioral Science,” American Economic Review 49, 253–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonson, I. and A. Tversky (1992). “Choice in Context: Tradeoff Contrast and Extremeness Aversion,” Journal of Marketing Research 29, 281–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V. (1979). “An Experimental Comparison of Three Public Good Decision Mechanisms,” Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 81, 198–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonnemans, J., A. Schram, and T. Offerman. (1994). “Public Good Provision and Public Bad Prevention: The Effect of Framing,” University of Amsterdam Working Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterman, J. (1994). “Learning In and About Complex Systems,” System Dynamics Review 10, 291–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svenson, O. (1979). “Process Descriptions of Decision Making,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 23, 86–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svenson, O. (1996). “On the Modeling of Human Choices in Descriptive Behavioral Decision Theory,” Stockholm University Working Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taussig, F. (1912). Principles of Economics. Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. (1985). “Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice,” Marketing Science 4, 199–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. (1990). “Savings, Fungability, and Mental Accounts,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 4, 193–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. (1991). Quasi-Rational Economics. Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R.; Johnson, E. (1990). “Gambling with the House Money and Trying to Break Even: The Effects of Prior Outcomes on Risky Choice,” Management Science, 36, 643–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tune, G. (1996). “Neglect of Stimulus Information in a Two-choice Task,” Journal of General Psychology 74, 231–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. (1977). “On the Elicitation of Preferences: Descriptive and Prescriptive Considerations.” In D. Bell, R. Kenney, and H. Raiffa (eds.), Conflicting Objectives in Decisions. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. and C. Fox. (1995). “Weighing Risk and Uncertainty,” Psychological Review 102, 269–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman. (1971). “Belief in the Law of Small Numbers,” Psychological Bulletin 76, 105–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman. (1974). “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,” Science, 185, 1124–1131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman. (1981). “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice,” Science 211, 453–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman. (1991). “Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 107, 1039–1061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman. (1992). “Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representations of Uncertainty,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5, 297–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., P. Slovic, and D. Kahneman. (1990). “The Causes of Preference Reversal,” American Economic Review 80, 204–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. and E. Shafir. (1992). “The Disjunction Effect in Choice Under Uncertainty,” Psychological Science 3, 305–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., S. Sattath, and P. Slovic. (1988). “Contingent Weighting in Judgment and Choice,” Psychological Review 95, 371–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Neumann, J., O. Morgenstern. (1947). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whittington, D., et al. (1992). “Giving Respondents Time to Think in Contingent Valuation Studies: A Developing Country Application,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22 (3), 205–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, Jonathan. (1997). Political action vs. voluntarism in social dilemmas and aid for the needy. Rationality and Society 9, 307–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, Jonathan. (1998). Judgment Misguided: Intuition and Error in Public Decision Making. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, Geoffrey, and Loren Lomasky. (1993). Democracy and Decision: The Pure Theory of Electoral Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, Jonathan, and Mark Spranca. (1997). Protected values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 70, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics, University of California, Berkeley, 94720-3880, USA

    Daniel McFadden

  2. Department of Economics, 0508, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0508, USA

    Mark J. Machina

  3. Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, 3815 Walnut St., Philadelphia, PA, 19104-6196, USA

    Jonathan Baron

Authors
  1. Daniel McFadden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mark J. Machina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jonathan Baron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, USA

    Baruch Fischhoff

  2. Department of Economics, Northwestern University, USA

    Charles F. Manski

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1999 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

McFadden, D., Machina, M.J., Baron, J. (1999). Rationality for Economists?. In: Fischhoff, B., Manski, C.F. (eds) Elicitation of Preferences. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1406-8_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1406-8_4

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5776-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-1406-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation