发表机构
Cornell University; Caltech, Division of Humanities and Social Sciences（康奈尔大学; 加州理工学院人文与社会科学部）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
本研究重新评估选择与估值测量经济偏好时的程序不变性失效，提出新检验方法，发现丰富数据下偏好不稳定且与风险厌恶差异的常规认知不同。
AI 中文摘要
过去的研究强调了在使用选择与估值测量经济偏好时“程序不变性”的失效。我们通过考察当偏好稳定但测量存在噪声且个体具有异质性时，选择与估值之间的理论联系，重新评估这些失效现象。即使在关于噪声和异质性的强假设下，稳定性通常也不意味着测量结果相同。我们结合关于异质性和噪声的各种辅助假设，开发了新的稳定偏好检验方法。我们利用现有数据实施这些检验，以理解在风险偏好领域，选择与估值是否确实不同，并对任何偏差提供定量评估。限于先前文献中使用的数据类型，我们很少拒绝稳定偏好的零假设。利用将个体选择与估值联系起来的更丰富数据及结构假设，我们发现了不稳定性的证据，这种不稳定性在性质上不同于普遍认知——即选择比估值意味着更大的风险厌恶。
英文摘要
Past research highlights failures of "procedural invariance" when measuring economic preferences using choices versus valuations. We reassess these failures by examining theoretical connections between choices and valuations when preferences are stable but measurements are noisy and individuals are heterogeneous. Even under strong assumptions governing noise and heterogeneity, stability does not generally imply identical measurements. We develop new tests of stable preferences in conjunction with various ancillary assumptions about heterogeneity and noise. We implement these tests using existing data to understand if, in the domain of risk preferences, choices and valuations truly differ and to provide quantitative assessments of any deviations. Limiting to the types of data used in the prior literature, we rarely reject the null of stable preferences. With richer data linking individual choices and valuations and structural assumptions, we find evidence of instability which differs qualitatively from the received wisdom that choices implicate greater risk aversion than valuations.
Comments69 pages, 7 figures. Includes a 25-page supplementary appendix
