Reconsidering mistakes: reproduction and replication of Nielsen and Rehbeck (2022)

Gabriel Bayle (), Dimitri Dubois () and Simon Varaine ()
Additional contact information
Gabriel Bayle: GATE Lyon Saint-Étienne - Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon - Saint-Etienne - UL2 - Université Lumière - Lyon 2 - UJM - Université Jean Monnet - Saint-Étienne - EM - EMLyon Business School - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
Dimitri Dubois: CEE-M - Centre d'Economie de l'Environnement - Montpellier - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement - Institut Agro Montpellier - Institut Agro - Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement - UM - Université de Montpellier
Simon Varaine: GAEL - Laboratoire d'Economie Appliquée de Grenoble - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement - UGA - Université Grenoble Alpes - Grenoble INP - Institut polytechnique de Grenoble - Grenoble Institute of Technology - UGA - Université Grenoble Alpes, IEPG - Sciences Po Grenoble-UGA - Institut d'études politiques de Grenoble - UGA - Université Grenoble Alpes

CEE-M Working Papers from CEE-M, Universtiy of Montpellier, CNRS, INRA, Montpellier SupAgro

Abstract: There is a long-standing debate as to whether violations of rational choice axioms reflect normative deviations from the theory or simply mistakes. We contribute to this debate by reproducing and replicating Nielsen and Rehbeck's (2022) experimental study, with a new focus on heterogeneity across axioms. We conduct a three-part analysis comprising a direct computational reproduction, a robustness reproduction, and a high-powered preregistered replication (N = 451) focusing on the Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives (IIA). We find robust evidence that individuals express a desire to follow canonical axioms, but perceive violations as mistakes only for a subset of them-specifically, IIA and Transitivity. In contrast, we find no evidence that violations of Independence, First-Order Stochastic Dominance, Branching, or Consistency are perceived as mistakes. We discuss these findings through the lens of cognitive complexity, suggesting that individuals may fail to recognize violations of more demanding axioms even when prompted.

Keywords: replication; reproducibility; complexity; choice axioms; decision theory (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2026
Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-05474766v1
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-05474766v1/document (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hal:wpceem:hal-05474766

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in CEE-M Working Papers from CEE-M, Universtiy of Montpellier, CNRS, INRA, Montpellier SupAgro Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Laurent Garnier ().