Posterior Probabilities of the independence axiom with nonexperimental data (Or buckle up and fan out)

Robert C. Marshall; Jean Francois Richard; Gary A. Zarkin

doi:10.1080/07350015.1992.10509883

Posterior Probabilities of the independence axiom with nonexperimental data (Or buckle up and fan out)

Robert C. Marshall, Jean Francois Richard, Gary A. Zarkin

Economics

Research output: Contribution to journal › Comment/debate › peer-review

Abstract

This article addresses the issues associated with the construction of posterior probabilities for violation of the independence axiom of expected utility from nonexperimental data. To illustrate the methodology of analyzing nonexperimental evidence, we consider seat-belt-usage data. We find a posterior probability close to one of an Allais-type paradox in these data. In addition, the evidence is not inconsistent with Machina’s Hypothesis II but is inconsistent with the “light” hypothesis of Chew and Waller.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	31-44
Number of pages	14
Journal	Journal of Business and Economic Statistics
Volume	10
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1080/07350015.1992.10509883
State	Published - Jan 1992

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

Statistics and Probability
Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
Economics and Econometrics
Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty

Access to Document

10.1080/07350015.1992.10509883

Cite this

@article{1747179463ea4b52be4e90779a187161,

title = "Posterior Probabilities of the independence axiom with nonexperimental data (Or buckle up and fan out)",

abstract = "This article addresses the issues associated with the construction of posterior probabilities for violation of the independence axiom of expected utility from nonexperimental data. To illustrate the methodology of analyzing nonexperimental evidence, we consider seat-belt-usage data. We find a posterior probability close to one of an Allais-type paradox in these data. In addition, the evidence is not inconsistent with Machina{\textquoteright}s Hypothesis II but is inconsistent with the “light” hypothesis of Chew and Waller.",

author = "Marshall, {Robert C.} and Richard, {Jean Francois} and Zarkin, {Gary A.}",

note = "Funding Information: Marshall and Richard acknowledge support for this research from the Ford Foundation, the National Science Foundation (SES-8708615. SES-9012202), and the Pew Charitable Trusts. We are extremely grateful to Mark Machina for his persistent encouragement to pursue this research and for numerous suggestions. In addition, we are indebted to Phil Cook, John Geweke, and an anonymous associate editor and two referees of this journal for helpful comments. Leslie A. McFarland provided skillful research assistance.",

year = "1992",

month = jan,

doi = "10.1080/07350015.1992.10509883",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "10",

pages = "31--44",

journal = "Journal of Business and Economic Statistics",

issn = "0735-0015",

publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Posterior Probabilities of the independence axiom with nonexperimental data (Or buckle up and fan out)

AU - Marshall, Robert C.

AU - Richard, Jean Francois

AU - Zarkin, Gary A.

N1 - Funding Information: Marshall and Richard acknowledge support for this research from the Ford Foundation, the National Science Foundation (SES-8708615. SES-9012202), and the Pew Charitable Trusts. We are extremely grateful to Mark Machina for his persistent encouragement to pursue this research and for numerous suggestions. In addition, we are indebted to Phil Cook, John Geweke, and an anonymous associate editor and two referees of this journal for helpful comments. Leslie A. McFarland provided skillful research assistance.

PY - 1992/1

Y1 - 1992/1

N2 - This article addresses the issues associated with the construction of posterior probabilities for violation of the independence axiom of expected utility from nonexperimental data. To illustrate the methodology of analyzing nonexperimental evidence, we consider seat-belt-usage data. We find a posterior probability close to one of an Allais-type paradox in these data. In addition, the evidence is not inconsistent with Machina’s Hypothesis II but is inconsistent with the “light” hypothesis of Chew and Waller.

AB - This article addresses the issues associated with the construction of posterior probabilities for violation of the independence axiom of expected utility from nonexperimental data. To illustrate the methodology of analyzing nonexperimental evidence, we consider seat-belt-usage data. We find a posterior probability close to one of an Allais-type paradox in these data. In addition, the evidence is not inconsistent with Machina’s Hypothesis II but is inconsistent with the “light” hypothesis of Chew and Waller.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84952492345&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84952492345&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/07350015.1992.10509883

DO - 10.1080/07350015.1992.10509883

M3 - Comment/debate

AN - SCOPUS:84952492345

SN - 0735-0015

VL - 10

SP - 31

EP - 44

JO - Journal of Business and Economic Statistics

JF - Journal of Business and Economic Statistics

IS - 1

ER -

Posterior Probabilities of the independence axiom with nonexperimental data (Or buckle up and fan out)

Abstract

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this