Empirical study demonstrates distinct choice patterns between single and repeated gambles, indicating that utility theory violations cannot be generalized across contexts.
This article is concerned with a recent debate on the generality of utility theory. It has been argued by Lopes (1981) that decisions regarding preferences between gambles are different for unique and repeated gambles. The present article provides empirical support for the need to distinguish between these two. It is proposed that violations of utility theory obtained under unique conditions (e.g., Kahneman & Tversky, 1979), cannot necessarily be generalized to repeated conditions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Keren et al. (1987) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: