IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pab/wpaper/10.03.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Modelling Noise and Imprecision in Individual Decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Graham Loomes

    (University of Warwick)

  • José Luis Pinto-Prades

    (Department of Economics,Universidad Pablo de Olavide)

  • Jose Maria Abellan-Perpinan

    (U. de Murcia)

  • Eva Rodriguez-Miguez

    (U. de Vigo)

Abstract

When individuals take part in decision experiments, their answers are typically subject to some degree of noise / error / imprecision. There are different ways of modelling this stochastic element in the data, and the interpretation of the data can be altered radically, depending on the assumptions made about the stochastic specification. This paper presents the results of an experiment which gathered data of a kind that has until now been in short supply. These data strongly suggest that the 'usual' (Fechnerian) assumptions about errors are inappropriate for individual decision experiments. Moreover, they provide striking evidence that core preferences display systematic departures from transitivity which cannot be attributed to any 'error' story.

Suggested Citation

  • Graham Loomes & José Luis Pinto-Prades & Jose Maria Abellan-Perpinan & Eva Rodriguez-Miguez, 2010. "Modelling Noise and Imprecision in Individual Decisions," Working Papers 10.03, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:pab:wpaper:10.03
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.upo.es/serv/bib/wps/econ1003.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2010
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Loomes, Graham & Moffatt, Peter G & Sugden, Robert, 2002. "A Microeconometric Test of Alternative Stochastic Theories of Risky Choice," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 103-130, March.
    2. Seidl, Christian, 2002. "Preference Reversal," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(5), pages 621-655, December.
    3. Nicholas Bardsley & Robin Cubitt & Graham Loomes & Peter Moffatt & Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden, 2009. "Experimental Economics: Rethinking the Rules," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 9074.
    4. David Buschena & David Zilberman, 2008. "Generalized expected utility, heteroscedastic error, and path dependence in risky choice," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 201-201, April.
    5. Richard Mckelvey & Thomas Palfrey, 1998. "Quantal Response Equilibria for Extensive Form Games," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 9-41, June.
    6. Pavlo R. Blavatskyy, "undated". "A Stochastic Expected Utility Theory," IEW - Working Papers 231, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    7. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2007. "Stochastic expected utility theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 259-286, June.
    8. Graham Loomes, 2005. "Modelling the Stochastic Component of Behaviour in Experiments: Some Issues for the Interpretation of Data," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 8(4), pages 301-323, December.
    9. Ballinger, T Parker & Wilcox, Nathaniel T, 1997. "Decisions, Error and Heterogeneity," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 107(443), pages 1090-1105, July.
    10. David J. Butler & Graham C. Loomes, 2007. "Imprecision as an Account of the Preference Reversal Phenomenon," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(1), pages 277-297, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Robin Cubitt & Daniel Navarro-Martinez & Chris Starmer, 2015. "On preference imprecision," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 1-34, February.
    2. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2014. "Stronger utility," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 76(2), pages 265-286, February.
    3. Aurora García-Gallego & Nikolaos Georgantzís & Daniel Navarro-Martínez & Gerardo Sabater-Grande, 2011. "The stochastic component in choice and regression to the mean," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(2), pages 251-267, August.
    4. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2012. "Probabilistic choice and stochastic dominance," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 50(1), pages 59-83, May.
    5. Wilcox, Nathaniel T., 2011. "'Stochastically more risk averse:' A contextual theory of stochastic discrete choice under risk," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 162(1), pages 89-104, May.
    6. Graham Loomes, 2005. "Modelling the Stochastic Component of Behaviour in Experiments: Some Issues for the Interpretation of Data," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 8(4), pages 301-323, December.
    7. Anna Conte & John D. Hey & Peter G. Moffatt, 2018. "Mixture models of choice under risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 1, pages 3-12, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. David M. Bruner, 2017. "Does decision error decrease with risk aversion?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(1), pages 259-273, March.
    9. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2009. "Preference reversals and probabilistic decisions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 237-250, December.
    10. Nathaniel T. Wilcox, 2015. "Error and Generalization in Discrete Choice Under Risk," Working Papers 15-11, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    11. Andreas C Drichoutis & Jayson L Lusk, 2014. "Judging Statistical Models of Individual Decision Making under Risk Using In- and Out-of-Sample Criteria," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(7), pages 1-13, July.
    12. Blavatskyy, Pavlo R., 2008. "Stochastic utility theorem," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(11), pages 1049-1056, December.
    13. Michael H. Birnbaum & Ulrich Schmidt & Miriam D. Schneider, 2017. "Testing independence conditions in the presence of errors and splitting effects," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 54(1), pages 61-85, February.
    14. John Hey & Andrea Morone & Ulrich Schmidt, 2009. "Noise and bias in eliciting preferences," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 213-235, December.
    15. Pavlo R. Blavatskyy, 2011. "A Model of Probabilistic Choice Satisfying First-Order Stochastic Dominance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(3), pages 542-548, March.
    16. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2010. "Reverse common ratio effect," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 219-241, June.
    17. Louis Lévy-Garboua & Hela Maafi & David Masclet & Antoine Terracol, 2012. "Risk aversion and framing effects," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(1), pages 128-144, March.
    18. Daniel Navarro-Martinez & Graham Loomes & Andrea Isoni & David Butler & Larbi Alaoui, 2018. "Boundedly rational expected utility theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 57(3), pages 199-223, December.
    19. Blavatskyy, Pavlo, 2016. "Probability weighting and L-moments," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 255(1), pages 103-109.
    20. Loomes, Graham & Starmer, Chris & Sugden, Robert, 2010. "Preference reversals and disparities between willingness to pay and willingness to accept in repeated markets," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 374-387, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Error Imprecision Preferences Transitivity;

    JEL classification:

    • C44 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - Operations Research; Statistical Decision Theory
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pab:wpaper:10.03. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Publicación Digital - UPO (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deupoes.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.