Knock-out for descriptive utility or experimental-design error?

Using an experimental design of stating equivalent probabilities for 252 st imulus lottery pairs, Chechile and Cooke (1997) alleged to have refuted gen eric-utility theory which itself comprises many modern utility theories. Th e present paper systematically investigates the feasibility of the Chechile -Cooke experimental design using numerical methods. We examine 1,277 utilit y setups (involving 17 parameter sets for four probability-weighting functi ons and 11 parameter sets for three component utility functions) which repr esent ten different utility theories. Our results demonstrate that on avera ge for more than one third of all stimulus lottery pairs no equivalent prob abilities exist. That is, the Chechile-Cooke experimental design prevents s ubjects from stating their true probability equivalents. Therefore, they ca nnot claim to have refuted generic-utility theory and the members of its fa mily.