Comparing Theories: What are we Looking For?
AbstractTwo recent papers, Harless and Camerer(1994) and Hey and Orme(1994) were both addressed to the same question: which is the 'best' theory of decision making under risk? The two papers shared a common concern: the appropriate trade-off between the descriptive accuracy of a theory and the predictive parsimony of that theory. In other respects, however, the two papers differed markedly: first in their treatment of the stochastic specification underlying the data generating process; second, and more importantly, in their interpretation of the question posed. This current paper tackles these two issues; first, trying to resolve the issue of the correct stochastic specification; second, by clarifying what economists might mean by a `best' theory. The paper provides a general framework for answering such questions, and illustrates the application of this framework through two experiments aimed at answering the question: `which is the best theory of decision making under risk?'.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. 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.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Department of Economics, University of York in its series Discussion Papers with number 99/18.
Date of creation:
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Department of Economics and Related Studies, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, United Kingdom
Phone: (0)1904 323776
Fax: (0)1904 323759
Web page: http://www.york.ac.uk/economics/
More information through EDIRC
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-1999-10-13 (All new papers)
- NEP-EXP-1999-10-13 (Experimental Economics)
- NEP-HPE-1999-11-20 (History & Philosophy of Economics)
- NEP-IND-1999-10-13 (Industrial Organization)
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.:
- Carbone, Enrica & Hey, John D, 1994. "Discriminating between Preference Functionals: A Preliminary Monte Carlo Study," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 8(3), pages 223-42, May.
- Hey, John D., 1995. "Experimental investigations of errors in decision making under risk," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 39(3-4), pages 633-640, April.
- Harless, David W & Camerer, Colin F, 1994. "The Predictive Utility of Generalized Expected Utility Theories," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(6), pages 1251-89, November.
- Carbone, Enrica, 1997. "Discriminating between Preference Functionals: A Monte Carlo Study," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 29-54, October.
- Hey, John D. & Carbone, Enrica, 1995. "Stochastic choice with deterministic preferences: An experimental investigation," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 161-167, February.
- Selten,Reinhard, .
"Properties of a measure of predictive succes,"
Discussion Paper Serie B
130, University of Bonn, Germany.
- John Hey & Enrica Carbone, . "Which Error Theory is Best?," Discussion Papers 99/31, Department of Economics, University of York.
- Hey, John D., 1998. "An application of Selten's measure of predictive success," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 1-15, January.
- Hey, John D & Orme, Chris, 1994. "Investigating Generalizations of Expected Utility Theory Using Experimental Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(6), pages 1291-1326, November.
- Carbone, Enrica, 1997. "Investigation of stochastic preference theory using experimental data," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 305-311, December.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Paul Hodgson).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.