Consequence monotonicity means that if 2 gambles differ only in 1 consequence, the one having the better consequence is preferred. This property has been sustained in direct comparisons but apparently fails for some gamble pairs when they are ordered in terms of judged monetary certainty equivalents. In Experiments 1 and 3 a judgment procedure was compared with 2 variants of a choice procedure. Slightly fewer nonmonotonicities were found in one of the choice procedures, and, overall, fewer violations occurred than in previous studies. Experiments 2 and 3 showed that the difference was not due to procedural or stimulus presentation differences. Experiment 4 tested a noise model that suggested that the observed violations were due primarily to noise in estimating certainty equivalents, and so, despite some proportion of observed violations, consequence monotonicity cannot be rejected in that case.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 30 citations exist upstream.