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 file. 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, plain text, BibTeX, RIS (EndNote), 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:

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. 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!]
  2. John Hey, 2005. "Why We Should Not Be Silent About Noise," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 8(4), pages 325-345, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  3. 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!]
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? RePEc and its associated services are free for contributors and users, and do not accept any advertising.

This page was last updated on 2008-9-17.


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.