Journal Articles
Discussion Papers
Google+
Twitter
FacebookDiscussion Paper
Abstract
The study tests the cardinal utility maximization hypothesis by an experimental procedure in a framework of utility scaling approach following the psychophysical-econometric paradigm, conceived in He (Psychophysical Interpretation for Utility Measures, 2011). It reveals (i) the utility maximization can be tested and has been supported by experimental results; (ii) the utility scaling approach following the psychophysical econometric paradigm offers a new foundation to discuss the utility concept; and (iii) it is necessary to distinguish the perception utility and emotion utility to respectively describe economic choices and enjoyment choices.
Data Set
Data sets for articles published in "Economics" are available at Dataverse. Please have a look at our repository.
The data set for this article can be found at: http://hdl.handle.net/1902.1/18501
JEL Classification
Cite As
Assessment
Downloads:
347
Search this article at Google Scholar
Comments and Questions
The paper proposes to test experimentally the cardinal utility maximization hypothesis, and concludes that the experimental data supports this hypothesis. There is data from two variants of a choice experiment where subjects buy quantities of a few different goods, three kinds of nut in one case, and apples, pens and ...[more]
...
facial tissues in the other case, plus a variant where the subjects bid on the goods.
Although the experiments seem quite basic the exact design is not easy to understand and instructions are not provided. Only a minority of the subjects seem to have completed the experiments (on page 12 it says that only 38 of 105 subjects delivered valid data in Choice I etc.), which does suggest that there might have been some problems with the design.
Thus it is not clear what information might be gained from this experimental data. In general, I find it difficult to see how an experiment of this kind could be used to gain information about cardinal utility. I’m not sure what to suggest, perhaps to look at the paper by Abdellaouia, Barrios and Wakker (2007) which is certainly relevant for the issue.
Many thanks for your comments and suggestions to my paper. They are very helpful for me to improve the work.
See attached file.
In this revised version, a new subsection “1.4 Critical investigations to revealed preference theory” is added. It reveals that revealed preference theory is meaningless as a positive theory.
see attached file
see attached file
See attached file.
In this revised version, a new subsection “1.4 Critical investigations to revealed preference theory” is added. It reveals that revealed preference theory is meaningless as a positive theory.