 A number of studies set out to test the normative adequacy of SEU along the proposed lines. MacCrimmon (1968) reported violations, in a sample of experienced business executives, of a wide range of consequences of SEU, a number of which persisted after subjects were notably provided with considerations both supporting and undermining these principles. Those principles with respect to which offending preferences were later corrected included most notably Transitivity and Stochastic Dominance. Allais- or Ellsberg-style preferences were substantially more resilient, however, a fact confirmed in a later study by Slovic &amp; Tversky (1974). Another type of resilience of preferences, not considered by Savage, was more recently investigated by van de Kuilen &amp; Wakker (2006). They studied the effects of providing feedback on decision outcomes on the prevalence of common consequence effects in sequences of choices, finding, however, a significant reduction in SEU violations.