1. On Preference for Simplicity and Probability Weighting. (2025). Mononen, Lasse.
   In: Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers.
   RePEc:bie:wpaper:748.

   Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

2. Who is ambiguity neutral?. (2024). Blavatskyy, Pavlo.
   In: The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review.
   RePEc:pal:genrir:v:49:y:2024:i:2:d:10.1057_s10713-023-00086-1.

   Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

3. Menu-dependent risk attitudes: Theory and evidence. (2024). Chen, Zhuo ; Golman, Russell ; Somerville, Jason.
   In: Journal of Risk and Uncertainty.
   RePEc:kap:jrisku:v:68:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s11166-023-09423-1.

   Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

4. Does the Allais paradox survive with non-monetary consequences?. (2024). Arroyos-Calvera, Danae ; McDonald, Rebecca ; Loomes, Graham ; Isoni, Andrea.
   In: Economics Letters.
   RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:244:y:2024:i:c:s0165176524005184.

   Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

5. Distinguishing Common Ratio Preferences from Common Ratio Effects Using Paired Valuation Tasks. (2024). O'Donoghue, Ted ; Nielsen, Kirby ; Somerville, Jason ; McGranaghan, Christina ; Sprenger, Charles D.
   In: American Economic Review.
   RePEc:aea:aecrev:v:114:y:2024:i:2:p:307-47.

   Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

1. *Agranov, M., & Ortoleva, P. (2017). Stochastic choice and preferences for randomization. Journal of Political Economy, 125(1), 40–68.

2. *Baillon, A., Bleichrodt, H., Liu, N., & Wakker, P. (2016). Group decision rules and group rationality under risk. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 52(2), 99–116.

3. *Barron, G., & Erev, I. (2003). Small feedback-based decisions and their limited correspondence to description-based decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16, 215–233.
   Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
   

4. *Bateman, I., & Munro, A. (2005). An experiment on risky choice amongst households. Economic Journal, 115(502), C176–-C189.

5. *Battalio, R. C., Kagel, J. H., & Jiranyakul, K. (1990). Testing between alternative models of choice under uncertainty: Some initial results. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 3(1), 25–50.

6. *Baucells, M., & Heukamp, F. H. (2010). Common ratio using delay. Theory and Decision, 68(1–2), 149–158.

7. *Beattie, J., & Loomes, G. (1997). The impact of incentives upon risky choice experiments. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 14, 149–162.

8. *Birnbaum, M. H., & Schmidt, U. (2015). The impact of learning by thought on violations of independence and coalescing. Decision Analysis, 12, 144–152.

9. *Blavatskyy, P. R. (2010). Reverse common ratio effect. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 40(3), 219–241.

10. *Blondel, S., Lohéac, Y., & Rinaudo, S. (2007). Rationality and drug use: An experimental approach. Journal of Health Economics, 26(3), 643–658.

11. *Bone, J., Hey, J., & Suckling, J. (1999). Are groups more (or less) consistent than individuals? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 18(1), 63–81.

12. *Burke, M. S., Carter, J. R., Gominiak, R. D., & Ohl, D. F. (1996). An experimental note on the Allais paradox and monetary incentives. Empirical Economics, 21, 617–632.

13. *Buschena, D. E., & Zilberman, D. (1999). Testing the effects of similarity on risky choice: Implications for violations of expected utility. Theory and Decision, 46(3), 253–276.

14. *Butler, D., & Loomes, G. (2011). Imprecision as an account of violations of independence and betweenness. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 80(3), 511–522.

15. *Carlin, P. S. (1992). Violations of the reduction and independence axioms in Allais-type and common-ratio effect experiments. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 19(2), 213–235.

16. *Chetty, R., Hofmeyr, A., Kincaid, H., & Monroe, B. (2020). The trust game does not (only) measure trust: The risk-trust confound revisited. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (forthcoming).
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
    
17. *Chew, H. S., & Waller, W. S. (1986). Empirical tests of weighted utility theory. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 30(1), 55–72.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
    

18. *DeKay, M., Schley, D., Miller, S., Erford, B., Sun, J., Karim, M., & Lanyon, M. (2016). The persistence of common-ratio effects in multiple-play decisions. Judgment and Decision Making, 11(4), 361–379.

19. *Fatas, E., Neugebauer, T., & Tamborero, P. (2007). How politicians make decisions: A political choice experiment. Journal of Economics, 92(2), 167–196.

20. *Harless, D. W., & Camerer, C. F. (1994). The predictive utility of generalized expected utility theories. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, pp. 1251–1289.

21. *Harrison, G. W., Hofmeyr, A., Ross, D., & Swarthout, J. T. (2018). Risk preferences, time preferences, and smoking behavior. Southern Economic Journal, 85(2), 313–348.

22. *Herrmann, T., Hübler, O., Menkhoff, L., & Schmidt, U. (2017). Allais for the poor: Relations to ability, information processing, and risk attitudes. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 54(2), 129–156.

23. *Hey, J., & DiCagno, D. (1990). Circles and Triangles: An experimental estimation of Indifference lines in the Marschak-Machina triangle. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 3, 279–306.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
    

24. *Leland, J. W., Schneider, M., & Wilcox, N. T. (2019). Minimal frames and transparent frames for risk, time, and uncertainty. Management Science, 65, 3949–4450.

25. *Linde, J., & Vis, B. (2017). Do politicians take risks like the rest of us? An experimental test of prospect theory under MPs. Political Psychology, 38(1), 101–117.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
    

26. *Loomes, G. (1988). Further evidence of the impact of regret and disappointment in choice under uncertainty. Economica, 55(217), 47–62.

27. *Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1987). Testing for regret and disappointment in choice under uncertainty. Economic Journal, 97, 118–129.

28. *Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1998). Testing different stochastic specifications of risky choice. Economica, 65, 581–598.

29. *MacCrimmon, K., & Larsson, S. (1979). Utility theory: axioms versus paradoxes. In M. Allais & O. Hagen (Eds.), Expected utility hypotheses and the Allais Paradox. Dordrecht: Reidel.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
    

30. *Nebout, A., & Dubois, D. (2014). When Allais meets Ulysses: Dynamic axioms and the common ratio effect. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 48(1), 19–49.

31. *Quattrone, G. A., & Tversky, A. (1988). Contrasting rational and psychological analysis of political choice. American Political Science Review, 82(3), 719–736.

32. *Schmidt, U., & Neugebauer, T. (2007). Testing expected utility in the presence of errors. Economic Journal, 117, 470–485.

33. *Schneider, M., & Shor, M. (2017). The common ratio effect in choice, pricing, and happiness tasks. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 30(4), 976–986.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
    
34. *Sopher, B., & Gigliotti, G. (1993). A test of generalized expected utility theory. Theory and Decision, 35(1), 75–106.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
    

35. *Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (1989a). Probability and juxtaposition effects: An experimental investigation of the common ratio effect. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2(2), 159–178.

36. *van de Kuilen, G., & Wakker, P. (2006). Learning in the Allais paradox. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 33, 155–164.

37. *Wu, G. (1994). An empirical test of ordinal independence. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 9(1), 39–60.

38. Allais, M. (1953). Le Comportement de l’Homme Rationnel devant le Risque: Critique des Postulates et Axiomes de l’Ecole Américaine. Econometrica, 21, 503–546.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
    

39. Andreoni, J., & Sprenger, C. (2012). Risk preferences are not time preferences. American Economic Review, 102(7), 3357–3376.

40. Ballinger, P., & Wilcox, N. (1997). Decisions, error and heterogeneity. Economic Journal, 107, 1090–1105.

41. Berns, G. S., Capra, C. M., Moore, S., & Noussair, C. (2007). A shocking experiment: New evidence on probability weighting and common ratio violations. Judgment and Decision Making, 2, 234–242.

42. Birnbaum, M. H., Schmidt, U., & Schneider, M. D. (2017). Testing independence conditions in the presence of errors and splitting effects. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 54(1), 61–85.

43. Blavatskyy, P. R., Ortmann, A., & Panchenko, V. (2022). On the experimental robustness of the Allais paradox. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 14(1), 143–146.

44. Chapman, G. B., & Weber, B. J. (2006). Decision biases in intertemporal choice and choice under uncertainty: Testing a common account. Memory and Cognition, 34(3), 589–602.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
    

45. Conlisk, J. (1989). Three variants on the allais example. American Economic Review, 79(3), 392–407.

46. Cubitt, R. P., Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (1998). Dynamic choice and the common ratio effect: An experimental investigation. Economic Journal, 108(450), 1362–1380.

47. Cubitt, R. P., Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (2001). Discovered preferences and the experimental evidence of violations of expected utility theory. Journal of Economic Methodology, 8(3), 385–414.

48. Erev, I., Ert, E., Plonsky, O., Cohen, D., & Cohen, O. (2017). From anomalies to forecasts: Toward a descriptive model of decisions under risk, under ambiguity, and from experience. Psychological Review, 124(4), 369–409.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
    

49. Harless, D. W. (1992). Predictions about indifference curves inside the unit triangle: A test of variants of expected utility theory. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 18, 391–414.

50. Harrison, G. W. (1994). Expected utility and the experimentalists. Empirical Economics, 19, 223–253.

51. Harrison, G. W., & Ng, J. M. (2016). Evaluating the expected welfare gain from insurance. The Journal of Risk and Insurance, 83(1), 91–120.

52. Harrison, G. W., & Swarthout, J. T. (2014). Experimental payment protocols and the Bipolar Behaviorist. Theory and Decision, 77, 423–438.

53. Hertwig, R., & Ortmann, A. (2001). Experimental practices in economics: A methodological challenge for psychologists? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(3), 383–451.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
    

54. Kagel, J., Battalio, R. C., & MacDonald, D. (1990). Tests of “Fanning Out” of indifference curves: results from animal and human experiments. American Economic Review, 80(4), 912–921.

55. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.

56. Kelsey, D., & Schepanski, A. (1991). Regret and disappointment in taxpayer reporting decisions: An experimental study. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 4(1), 33–53.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
    
57. Keren, G., & Wagenaar, W. A. (1987). Violation of expected utility theory in unique and repeated gambles. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory, and Cognition, 13, 387–391.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
    

58. Kvarven, A., Strømland, E., & Johannesson, M. (2020). Comparing meta-analyses and preregistered multiple-laboratory replication projects. Nature Human Behavior, 4, 423–434.

59. Loomes, G. (2005). Modelling the stochastic component of behaviour in experiments: Some issues for the interpretation of data. Experimental Economics, 8, 301–323.

60. Loomes, G., Moffatt, P. G., & Sugden, R. (2002). A Microeconometric test of alternative stochastic theories of risky choice. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 24(2), 103–130.

61. MacDonald, D. N., & Wall, J. L. (1989). An experimental study of the Allais Paradox over losses: some preliminary evidence. Quarterly Journal of Business and Economics, 28(4), 43–60.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
    

62. Machina, M. (1982). Expected utility’ analysis without the independence axiom. Econometrica, 50, 277–323.

63. Müller-Trede, J., Sher, S., & McKenzie, C. R. (2018). When payoffs look like probabilities: Separating form and content in risky choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(5), 662–670.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
    
64. Ortmann, A. (2016). Episodes from the early history of experimentation in economics. In A. Svorencik & H. Maas (Eds.), Witness seminar on the emergence of a field (pp. 195–217). Springer.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
    
65. Quiggin, J. (1981). Risk perception and risk aversion among Australian farmers. Australian Journal of Agricultural Resource Economics, 25(2), 160–169.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
    

66. Rockenbach, B., Sadrieh, A., & Mathauschek, B. (2007). Teams take the better risks. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 63, 412–422.

67. Rubinstein, A. (1988). Similarity and decision-making under risk. Journal of Economic Theory, 46, 145–153.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
    

68. Schmidt, U., & Seidl, C. (2014). Reconsidering the common ratio effect: The roles of compound independence, reduction, and coalescing. Theory and Decision, 77(3), 323–339.

69. Selten, R., Sadrieh, A., & Abbink, K. (1999). Money does not induce risk neutral behavior, but binary lotteries do even worse. Theory and Decision, 46, 211–249.

70. Starmer, C. (2000). Developments in non-expected utility theory: The hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk. Journal of Economic Literature, 38(2), 332–382.

71. Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (1989b). Violations of the independence axiom in common ratio problems: An experimental test of some competing hypotheses. Annals of Operations Research, 19, 79–102.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
    

72. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297–323.

73. von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1947). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
    
74. Weber, B. J., & Chapman, G. B. (2005). The combined effects of risk and time on choice: Does uncertainty eliminate the immediacy effect? Does delay eliminate the certainty effect? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96(2), 104–118.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
    

1. Multiple Switching and Data Quality in the Multiple Price List. (2021). Zhang, Y. Jane ; Zuo, Sharon Xuejing ; Yu, Chi Wai.
   In: The Review of Economics and Statistics.
   RePEc:tpr:restat:v:103:y:2021:i:1:p:136-150.

   Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

2. Imposing choice on the uninformed: the case of dynamic currency conversion. (2020). Ewerhart, Christian ; Li, Sheng.
   In: ECON - Working Papers.
   RePEc:zur:econwp:345.

   Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

3. Strength of preference and decisions under risk. (2020). Garagnani, Michele ; Alós-Ferrer, Carlos ; Alos-Ferrer, Carlos.
   In: ECON - Working Papers.
   RePEc:zur:econwp:330.

   Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

4. Time will tell: recovering preferences when choices are noisy. (2020). Netzer, Nick ; Fehr, Ernst ; Alós-Ferrer, Carlos ; Alos-Ferrer, Carlos.
   In: ECON - Working Papers.
   RePEc:zur:econwp:306.

   Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

5. Randomization and Ambiguity Aversion. (2020). Ke, Shaowei ; Zhang, QI.
   In: Econometrica.
   RePEc:wly:emetrp:v:88:y:2020:i:3:p:1159-1195.

   Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

6. Time Lotteries and Stochastic Impatience. (2020). Gottlieb, Daniel ; Ortoleva, Pietro ; Dejarnette, Patrick ; Dillenberger, David.
   In: Econometrica.
   RePEc:wly:emetrp:v:88:y:2020:i:2:p:619-656.

   Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

7. An economist and a psychologist form a line: What can imperfect perception of length tell us about stochastic choice?. (2020). Smith, John ; Duffy, Sean.
   In: MPRA Paper.
   RePEc:pra:mprapa:99417.

   Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

8. Reconsidering Risk Aversion. (2020). Kimball, Miles ; Benjamin, Daniel ; Fontana, Mark Alan.
   In: NBER Working Papers.
   RePEc:nbr:nberwo:28007.

   Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

9. The acceptability of lotteries in allocation problems. (2020). Foucart, Renaud ; Bouacida, Elias.
   In: Working Papers.
   RePEc:lan:wpaper:301646245.

   Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

10. Why do people prefer randomisation? An experimental investigation. (2020). Permana, Yudistira.
    In: Theory and Decision.
    RePEc:kap:theord:v:88:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s11238-019-09719-2.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

11. Dual choice axiom and probabilistic choice. (2020). Blavatskyy, Pavlo R.
    In: Journal of Risk and Uncertainty.
    RePEc:kap:jrisku:v:61:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s11166-020-09332-7.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

12. A Behavioral Characterization of the Drift Diffusion Model and Its Multialternative Extension for Choice Under Time Pressure. (2020). Marinacci, Massimo ; Cerreia-Vioglio, Simone ; Pirazzini, Marco ; Maccheroni, Fabio ; Baldassi, Carlo.
    In: Management Science.
    RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:66:y:2020:i:11:p:5075-5093.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

13. Opinion dynamics via search engines (and other algorithmic gatekeepers). (2020). Sobbrio, Francesco ; Germano, Fabrizio.
    In: Journal of Public Economics.
    RePEc:eee:pubeco:v:187:y:2020:i:c:s0047272720300529.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

14. Preferences for power. (2020). Pikulina, Elena S ; Tergiman, Chloe.
    In: Journal of Public Economics.
    RePEc:eee:pubeco:v:185:y:2020:i:c:s0047272720300372.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

15. Randomization under ambiguity: Efficiency and incentive compatibility. (2020). Liu, Zhiwei ; Song, Xinxi ; Yannelis, Nicholas C.
    In: Journal of Mathematical Economics.
    RePEc:eee:mateco:v:90:y:2020:i:c:p:1-11.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

16. Who’ll stop lying under oath? Empirical evidence from tax evasion games. (2020). Shogren, Jason ; Malézieux, Antoine ; Jacquemet, Nicolas ; Luchini, S ; Malezieux, A.
    In: European Economic Review.
    RePEc:eee:eecrev:v:124:y:2020:i:c:s0014292120300015.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

17. Cognitive abilities and risk taking: the role of preferences. (2020). Lohse, Johannes ; Drouvelis, Michalis.
    In: Discussion Papers.
    RePEc:bir:birmec:20-02.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

18. Black-Box Strategies and Equilibrium for Games with Cumulative Prospect Theoretic Players. (2020). Anantharam, Venkat ; Phade, Soham R.
    In: Papers.
    RePEc:arx:papers:2004.09592.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

19. Revealed statistical consumer theory. (2019). Dziewulski, Pawel ; Allen, Roy ; Rehbeck, John.
    In: Working Paper Series.
    RePEc:sus:susewp:1119.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

20. Judgments of length in the economics laboratory: Are there brains in choice?. (2019). Smith, John ; Gussman, Steven ; Duffy, Sean.
    In: MPRA Paper.
    RePEc:pra:mprapa:93126.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

21. Paying for Kidneys? A Randomized Survey and Choice Experiment. (2019). Macis, Mario ; Lacetera, Nicola ; Elias, Julio.
    In: NBER Working Papers.
    RePEc:nbr:nberwo:25581.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

22. Why choice lists increase risk taking. (2019). Mayraz, Guy ; Freeman, David.
    In: Experimental Economics.
    RePEc:kap:expeco:v:22:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s10683-018-9586-z.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

23. “Dice”-sion–Making Under Uncertainty: When Can a Random Decision Reduce Risk?. (2019). Wiesemann, Wolfram ; Delage, Erick ; Kuhn, Daniel.
    In: Management Science.
    RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:65:y:2019:i:7:p:3282-3301.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

24. The (Neural) Dynamics of Stochastic Choice. (2019). Webb, Ryan.
    In: Management Science.
    RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:65:y:2019:i:1:p:230-255.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

25. Eliciting Choice Correspondences A General Method and an Experimental Implementation. (2019). Bouacida, Elias.
    In: Working Papers.
    RePEc:hal:wpaper:halshs-01998001.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

26. Eliciting Choice Correspondences A General Method and an Experimental Implementation. (2019). Bouacida, Elias.
    In: PSE Working Papers.
    RePEc:hal:psewpa:halshs-01998001.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

27. Revealed preferences under uncertainty: Incomplete preferences and preferences for randomization. (2019). Riedl, Arno ; Cettolin, Elena.
    In: Journal of Economic Theory.
    RePEc:eee:jetheo:v:181:y:2019:i:c:p:547-585.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

28. Choice-theoretic foundations of the divisive normalization model. (2019). Glimcher, Paul ; Steverson, Kai ; Brandenburger, Adam.
    In: Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization.
    RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:164:y:2019:i:c:p:148-165.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

29. Paying for Kidneys? A Randomized Survey and Choice Experiment. (2019). Macis, Mario ; Lacetera, Nicola ; Elias, Julio.
    In: Working Paper CRENoS.
    RePEc:cns:cnscwp:201910.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

30. Flipping a coin: Evidence from university applications. (2018). Weizsäcker, Georg ; Kübler, Dorothea ; Dwenger, Nadja ; Weizsacker, Georg ; Kubler, Dorothea.
    In: EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters.
    RePEc:zbw:espost:209666.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

31. Smokers’ Rational Lexicographic Preferences for Cigarette Package Warnings: A Discrete Choice Experiment with Eye Tracking. (2018). Triunfo, Patricia ; Gerstenbluth, Mariana ; Harris, Jeffrey E.
    In: Documentos de Trabajo (working papers).
    RePEc:ude:wpaper:0218.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

32. The Economic Relevancy of Risk Preferences Elicited Online and With Low Stakes. (2018). Johnson, David ; Gibson, John.
    In: MPRA Paper.
    RePEc:pra:mprapa:87231.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

33. Time Lotteries and Stochastic Impatience. (2018). Ortoleva, Pietro ; Gottlieb, Daniel ; Dejarnette, Patrick ; Dillenberger, David.
    In: PIER Working Paper Archive.
    RePEc:pen:papers:18-021.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

34. Time Will Tell: Recovering Preferences When Choices Are Noisy. (2018). Netzer, Nick ; Fehr, Ernst ; Alós-Ferrer, Carlos ; Alos-Ferrer, Carlos.
    In: IZA Discussion Papers.
    RePEc:iza:izadps:dp11918.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

35. Flipping a coin: Evidence from university applications. (2018). Weizsäcker, Georg ; Kübler, Dorothea ; Dwenger, Nadja ; Weizsacker, Georg ; Kubler, Dorothea.
    In: Journal of Public Economics.
    RePEc:eee:pubeco:v:167:y:2018:i:c:p:240-250.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

36. Fechner’s strong utility model for choice among n>2 alternatives: Risky lotteries, Savage acts, and intertemporal payoffs. (2018). Blavatskyy, Pavlo.
    In: Journal of Mathematical Economics.
    RePEc:eee:mateco:v:79:y:2018:i:c:p:75-82.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

37. Response times in economics: Looking through the lens of sequential sampling models. (2018). Clithero, John A.
    In: Journal of Economic Psychology.
    RePEc:eee:joepsy:v:69:y:2018:i:c:p:61-86.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

38. Random intertemporal choice. (2018). Lu, Jay ; Saito, Kota.
    In: Journal of Economic Theory.
    RePEc:eee:jetheo:v:177:y:2018:i:c:p:780-815.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

39. Time Will Tell: Recovering Preferences when Choices Are Noisy. (2018). Netzer, Nick ; Fehr, Ernst ; Alós-Ferrer, Carlos ; Nick, Netzer ; Alos-Ferrer, Carlos.
    In: CESifo Working Paper Series.
    RePEc:ces:ceswps:_7333.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

40. Time will tell - Recovering Preferences when Choices are Noisy. (2018). Netzer, Nick ; Fehr, Ernst ; Alós-Ferrer, Carlos ; Alos-Ferrer, Carlos.
    In: Papers.
    RePEc:arx:papers:1811.02497.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

41. Opinion Dynamics via Search Engines (and other Algorithmic Gatekeepers). (2018). Sobbrio, Francesco ; Germano, Fabrizio.
    In: Papers.
    RePEc:arx:papers:1810.06973.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

42. No Time to Think: Food Decision-Making under Time Pressure. (2018). Palma, Marco ; Huseynov, Samir ; Krajbich, Ian.
    In: 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C..
    RePEc:ags:aaea18:274135.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

43. On the Roots of the Intrinsic Value of Decision Rights: Evidence from France and Japan. (2017). Tarroux, Benoît ; Hanaki, Nobuyuki ; Ferreira, João.
    In: Economics Working Paper Archive (University of Rennes & University of Caen).
    RePEc:tut:cremwp:2017-11.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

44. Aligning Democracy: A Comment on Bruno S. Frey’s “Proposals for a Democracy of the Future”. (2017). Kendall, Ryan.
    In: Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics.
    RePEc:spr:homoec:v:34:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s41412-017-0053-4.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

45. Indifference or indecisiveness: a strict discrimination. (2017). Ong, Qiyan ; Qiu, Jianying.
    In: MPRA Paper.
    RePEc:pra:mprapa:81790.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

46. Indifference or indecisiveness: a strict discrimination. (2017). Ong, Qiyan ; Qiu, Jianying.
    In: MPRA Paper.
    RePEc:pra:mprapa:81440.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

47. Deliberately Stochastic. (2017). Riella, Gil ; Ortoleva, Pietro ; Cerreia-Vioglio, Simone ; Dillenberger, David.
    In: PIER Working Paper Archive.
    RePEc:pen:papers:17-013.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

48. On the Roots of the Intrinsic Value of Decision Rights: Evidence from France and Japan. (2017). Tarroux, Benoît ; Hanaki, Nobuyuki ; Ferreira, João.
    In: GREDEG Working Papers.
    RePEc:gre:wpaper:2017-29.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

49. Goal-based models for discrete choice analysis. (2017). Swait, Joffre.
    In: Transportation Research Part B: Methodological.
    RePEc:eee:transb:v:101:y:2017:i:c:p:72-88.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

50. Breaking Bad: When Being Disadvantaged Incentivizes (Seemingly) Risky Behavior. (). Gibson, John.
    In: Eastern Economic Journal.
    RePEc:pal:easeco:v::y::i::d:10.1057_s41302-020-00172-6.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

Report date: 2025-10-06 01:16:10 || Missing content? Let us know