Table 4.

A comparison of the estimated parameters across preference functionals (part 1)

Parameter	Method	x	y	α	β	ρ
r	PC	RREU	RRRD	− 0.121***	0.988	0.849
r	PC	AREU	ARRD	− 0.048***	1.035	0.875
s	PC	RREU	RRRD	0.538***	0.789***	0.795
s	PC	AREU	ARRD	0.046***	0.844***	0.879
g	PC	RRRD	ARRD	0.624***	0.442***	0.451
r	AL	RREU	RRRD	0.185**	0.639***	0.801
r	AL	AREU	ARRD	0.009***	0.528***	0.700
s	AL	RREU	RRRD	0.001	1.058***	0.987
s	AL	AREU	ARRD	− 0.001	1.037***	0.997
g	AL	RRRD	ARRD	0.373***	0.579***	0.617
r	LC	RREU	RRRD	− 0.179***	1.082	0.923
r	LC	AREU	ARRD	− 0.040***	0.884**	0.913
s	LC	RREU	RRRD	0.078***	0.938	0.941
s	LC	AREU	ARRD	0.055**	0.963	0.950
g	LC	RRRD	ARRD	0.095	0.975	0.731
r	HL	RREU	RRRD	− 0.174***	0.835**	0.773
r	HL	AREU	ARRD	− 0.030***	0.829***	0.848
s	HL	RREU	RRRD	− 0.111*	1.139**	0.890
s	HL	AREU	ARRD	0.008	1.210**	0.847
g	HL	RRRD	ARRD	0.421***	0.388***	0.769

This table is for where the parameters are comparable. The α (intercept) and β (slope) values are obtained from a regression of the estimated parameter value for the y preference functional against the estimated parameter value for the x preference functional. The ρ value is the correlation coefficient. If they produce the same estimates α should be zero and β should be unity

The hypotheses being tested are α = 0 and β = 1

Key: preference functionals: RREU: expected utility with cRRa utility function, AREU: expected utility with cARa utility function, RRRD: rank dependent with cRRa utility function, ARRD: rank dependent with cARa utility function

Elicitation methods: PC: pairwise choices, AL: alocations, LC: lottery choice (Becker–DeGroot–Marschak mechanism), HL: Holt Laury price list

* Significantly different (from 0 for α and from 1 for β) at 10%; ** at 5% and *** at 1%