Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Probability Learning, Event-Splitting Effects and the Economic Theory of Choice

  • Published:
Theory and Decision Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper reports an experiment which investigates a possible cognitive antecedent of event-splitting effects (ESEs) experimentally observed by Starmer and Sugden (1993) and Humphrey (1995) – the learning of absolute frequency of event category impacting on the learning of probability of event category – and reveals some evidence that it is responsible for observed ESEs. It is also suggested and empirically substantiated that stripped-down prospect theory will accurately predict ESEs in some decision making tasks, but will not perform well in others. This contention, it is argued, is indicative of fundamental descriptive shortcomings in the economic conception of choice under uncertainty and may entail implications beyond the direct concerns of this paper.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Alba, J.W. and Marmorstein, H. (1987), The effects of frequency knowledge on consumer decision making, Journal of Consumer Research14: 14-25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Battalio, R., Kagel, J. and Jiranyakul, R. (1990), Testing between alternative models of choice under uncertainty: Some initial results, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty3: 25-50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, D.E. (1982), Regret in decision making under uncertainty, Operations Research30: 961-981.

    Google Scholar 

  • Einhorn, H.J. and Hogarth, R.M. (1978), Confidence in judgment: persistence in the illusion of validity, Psychological Review85: 396-416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Einhorn, H.J. and Hogarth, R.M. (1986), Decision making under ambiguity, Journal of Business59: 5225-5250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Estes, W.K. (1976a), The cognitive side of probability learning, Psychological Review83: 37-64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Estes, W.K. (1976b), Some functions of probability learning and choice behaviour, in Bower, G.H. (ed), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Vol. 10. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P.C. (1982), Nontransitive measurable utility, Journal of Mathematical Psychology26: 31-67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P.C. (1987), Reconsiderations in the theory of choice under uncertainty, Economic Journal97: 825-841.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grether, D.M. and Plott, C.R. (1979), Economic theory of choice and the preference reversal phenomenon, American Economic Review69: 623-638.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harless, D.W. (1992), Actions versus prospects: the effect of problem representation on regret, American Economic Review82: 634-649.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harless, D.W. and Camerer, C.F. (1994), The Predictive utility of generalized expected utility theories, Econometrica62: 1251-1289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasher, L. and Zacks, R.T. (1984), Automatic processing of fundamental information: the case of frequency of occurrence, American Psychologist39: 1372-1389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hey, J.D. and Orme, C. (1994), Investigating generalizations of expected utility theory using experimental data, Econometrica62: 633-640.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey, S.J. (1995), Regret aversion or event-splitting effects? More evidence under risk and uncertainty, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty11: 263-274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey, S.J. (1996), Do anchoring effects underlie event-splitting effects? An experimental test, Economics Letters51: 295-301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979), Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk, Econometrica47: 263-291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kisielius, J. and Sternthal, B. (1986), Examining the vividness controversy: an availability-valence interpretation, Journal of Consumer Research12: 418-431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, S. and Slovic, P. (1971), Reversals of preference between bids and choices in gambling decisions, Journal of Experimental Psychology89: 46-55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, S. and Slovic, P. (1973), Response-induced reversals of preferences in gambling: an experimental replication in Las Vegas, Journal of Experimental Psychology101: 16-20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loomes, G. and Sugden, R. (1982), Regret theory: an alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty, Economic Journal92: 805-824.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loomes, G. and Sugden, R. (1987a), Some implications of a more general form of regret theory, Journal of Economic Theory41: 270-287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loomes, G. and Sugden, R. (1987b), Testing for regret and disappointment in choice under uncertainty, Economic Journal97 (supplement): 118-129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loomes, G., Starmer, C. and Sugden R. (1991), Observing violations of transitivity by experimental methods, Econometrica59: 425-439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loomes, G., Starmer, C. and Sugden, R. (1992), Are preferences monotonic? Testing some predictions of regret theory, Economica59: 17-33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R.D. (1959), Individual Choice Behaviour: A Theoretical Analysis. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J.G. (1978), Bounded rationality, ambiguity and the engineering of choice, Bell Journal of Economics9: 587-608.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reber, A.S. and Millward, R.B. (1968), Event observation in probability learning, Journal of Experimental Psychology77: 317-327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. (1972), From Shakespeare to Simon: speculation-and some evidence-about man's ability to process information, Oregon Research Institute Bulletin12 (3).

  • Starmer, C. (1992), Violations of monotonicity-regret effects or probability processing effects? An experimental test, Economics Research Centre Discussion Paper No.9218, University of East Anglia, Norwich.

  • Starmer, C. and Sugden, R. (1993), Testing for juxtaposition and event-splitting effects, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty6: 235-254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sugden, R. (1993), An axiomatic foundation for regret theory, Journal of Economic Theory60: 159-178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. (1987), The psychology of choice and the assumptions of economics, in Roth, A.E. (ed.), Laboratory Experimentation in Economics: Six Points of View. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thurstone, L.L. (1927), A law of comparative judgment, Psychological Review34: 273-286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thurstone, L.L. (1959), TheMeasurement of Values. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1974), Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases, Science185: 1124-1131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1992), Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty5: 297-323.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, United Kingdom

    Steven J. Humphrey

Authors
  1. Steven J. Humphrey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Humphrey, S.J. Probability Learning, Event-Splitting Effects and the Economic Theory of Choice. Theory and Decision 46, 51–78 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004984621705

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004984621705

Search

Navigation