This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Which Error Story Is Best?

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
 Carbone, Enrica
Hey, John D

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

Two recent papers, Harless and Camerer (1994) and Hey and Orme (1994) are both addressed to the same question: which is the "best" theory of decision making under risk? As an essential part of their separate approaches to an answer to this question, both sets of authors had to make an assumption about the underlying stochastic nature of their data. In this context this implied an assumption about the "errors" made by the subjects in the experiments generating the data under analysis. The two different sets of authors adopted different assumptions: the purpose of this current paper is to compare and contrast these two different error stories--in an attempt to discover which of the two is "best." Copyright 2000 by Kluwer Academic Publishers

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://journals.kluweronline.com/issn/0895-5646/contents
File Format: text/html
File Function: link to full text
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Publisher Info
Article provided by Springer in its journal Journal of Risk and Uncertainty.

Volume (Year): 20 (2000)
Issue (Month): 2 (March)
Pages: 161-76
Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Handle: RePEc:kap:jrisku:v:20:y:2000:i:2:p:161-76

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=100299

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Christopher F. Baum).

Related research
Keywords:

Other versions of this item:

Cited by:
(explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)
  1. Booij, Adam S. & van Praag, Bernard M. S. & van de Kuilen, Gijs, 2009. "A Parametric Analysis of Prospect Theory's Functionals for the General Population," IZA Discussion Papers 4117, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA). [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  2. Birnbaum, Michael H. & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2006. "Empirical Tests of Intransitivity Predicted by Models of Risky Choice," Economics Working Papers 2006,10, Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel, Department of Economics. [Downloadable!]
  3. John Hey, 2005. "Why We Should Not Be Silent About Noise," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 8(4), pages 325-345, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  4. Henry Stott, 2006. "Cumulative prospect theory's functional menagerie," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 101-130, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  5. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2007. "Stochastic expected utility theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 259-286, June. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  6. Schmidt, Ulrich & Neugebauer, Tibor, 2003. "An Experimental Investigation of the Role of Errors for Explaining Violations of Expected Utility," Diskussionspapiere der Wirtschaftswissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Universität Hannover dp-279, Universität Hannover, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät. [Downloadable!]
  7. Gijs Kuilen & Peter Wakker, 2006. "Learning in the Allais paradox," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 155-164, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  8. Michael H. Birnbaun & Ulrich Schmidt, 2008. "An Experimental Investigation of Violations of Transitivity in Choice under Uncertainty," Kiel Working Papers 1396, Kiel Institute for the World Economy. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  9. Serge Blondel, 2002. "Testing Theories of Choice Under Risk: Estimation of Individual Functionals," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 251-265, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  10. Sarah Jacobson & Ragan Petrie, 2009. "Learning from mistakes: What do inconsistent choices over risk tell us?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 143-158, April. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? Cannot find something on IDEAS? Encourage the publisher to index it! Instructions.

This page was last updated on 2009-12-4.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.