Cited by 277Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsExperimental Behavioral Economics StudiesEconomic and Environmental Valuation

Who Is (More) Rational?

Open access
Choi, Syngjoo, Kariv, Shachar, Müller, Wieland, Silverman, Dan·2014·American Economic Review

Abstract

Revealed preference theory offers a criterion for decision-making quality: if decisions are high quality then there exists a utility function the choices maximize. We conduct a large-scale experiment to test for consistency with utility maximization. Consistency scores vary markedly within and across socioeconomic groups. In particular, consistency is strongly related to wealth: A standard deviation increase in consistency is associated with 15–19 percent more household wealth. This association is quantitatively robust to conditioning on correlates of unobserved constraints, preferences, and beliefs. Consistency with utility maximization under laboratory conditions thus captures decision-making ability that applies across domains and influences important real-world outcomes. (JEL D12, D14, D81, D83, D91, G11)

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1257/aer.104.6.1518

Cites

85 of 85 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In human subjects (our experiment) and prior studies, rationality score and preference differ across demographic groups.

    “These are in contrast to results of our human experiment (SI Appendix, Tables S5 and S6) and prior studies where rationality score and preference have been shown to differ across demographic groups (22, 28, 61).”

    From The emergence of economic rationality of GPT (2023) · cites this paper as [22]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 87 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Afriat, S. (1972) "E¢ ciency Estimates of Production Functions."International Economic Re- view, 8, pp. 568-598.
  2. Camerer, C. (1995) "Individual Decision Making." In Handbook of Experimental Economics, ed. John Kagel and Alvin Roth. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  3. Falk, A. and J. Heckman (2009) "Laboratory Experiments are a Major Source of Knowledge in Social Sciences." Science, 326, pp. 535-38.
  4. Houtman, M. and J. Maks (1985) "Determining all Maximial Data Subsets Consistent with Revealed Preference." Kwantitatieve Methoden, 19, pp. 89-104.
  5. Mas-Colell, A. (1977) "The Recoverability of Consumer's Preferences from Market Demand Behavior." Econometrica, 45, pp. 1409-1430.
  6. Mas-Colell, A. (1978) "On Revealed Preferences Analysis." Review of Economic Studies, 45, pp. 121-131.
  7. Samuelson, P. (1947) Foundations of Economic Analysis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  8. Savage, L. J. (1954) The Foundations of Statistics. New York: Wiley.
  9. Sippel, R. (1997) "An Experiment on the Pure Theory of Consumer's Behavior." Economic Journal, 107, pp. 1431-1444.
  10. Terza, J. (1998) "Estimating Count Data Models with Endogenous Switching: Sample Selec- tion and Endogenous Treatment E¤ects." Journal of Econometrics, 84, pp. 129-154.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Choi, S., Kariv, S., Müller, W., & Silverman, D.
Affiliations
  • University College London (GB)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • University of Vienna (AT)
  • Arizona State University (US)
Venue
American Economic Review
Published
2014-06-01
Volume
104
Issue
6
Pages
1518-1550
ISSN
0002-8282 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1601160662
Cited by
277
References
87
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 7
FWCI
5.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Economic Review (publishedVersion)
  • National Bureau of Economic Research (publishedVersion)
  • Research portal (Tilburg University) (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Seoul National University Open Repository (Seoul National University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Network for Studies on Pensions, Aging and Retirement
  • Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
  • Universiteit van Tilburg
  • Economic and Social Research Council
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Environmental Valuation
Keywords
revealed preference, utility maximization, decision consistency, rationality, socioeconomic heterogeneity, income, gender differences, age, wealth, personality, risk tolerance, field experiments

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review