Experimental economics demonstrates systematic violations of the expected utility model through paradoxes like Allais and Ellsberg
Experimental economics and decision research consistently demonstrate that human choices systematically violate expected utility theory, robustly highlighted by classic anomalies like the Allais and Ellsberg paradoxes.
The retrieved papers provide robust support for the claim. Multiple papers explicitly reference the Ellsberg paradox, ambiguity aversion, and the Allais paradox as empirical violations of expected utility theory. No papers refute the core premise that such violations are systematically observed in experimental economics.
Briony D. Pulford, Andrew M. Colman. Size Doesn't Really Matter. 2008. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.55.1.31
Paper 1 demonstrates that ambiguity aversion in urn tasks violates expected utility theory.
See more details
Bethany J. Weber, Wah Pheow Tan. Ambiguity aversion in a delay analogue of the Ellsberg Paradox. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500002734
Paper 3 shows that ambiguity aversion, structurally identical to the Ellsberg paradox, extends beyond risk into intertemporal choice.
Anaïs Osmont, Mathieu Cassotti. Development of ambiguity aversion from early adolescence to adulthood: New insights from the Ellsberg paradox. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1177/01650254221104056
Paper 5 confirms the robustness of ambiguity aversion across various developmental stages using adaptations of the Ellsberg paradox.
Zilker V, Pachur T. Toward an attentional turn in research on risky choice.. 2022. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.953008
Paper 6 acknowledges that the Allais paradox and other phenomena represent seminal empirical deviations from neo-Bernoullian expected utility theory.
The paper trail · every fact has a biography
Challenge the receipt
Citation formatting by citeproc-js (Frank Bennett) and the Citation Style Language project. Source and licenses.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work · Dispute this receipt