Much experimental effort has been expended in attempts to establish the relative superiority of Expected Utility theory and the many recently-developed alternatives as descriptions of the behaviour of subjects in risky choice decision problems. The cumulative evidence shows clearly that there is a great deal of noise in the experimental data, which makes it difficult to identify the `best' description of such behaviour. This paper reports on an experiment which seeks to determine whether such noise is relatively transitory and decays with experience and repetition, and thus whether a clearly `best' theory emerges as a result of such repetition. We find that for some subjects this does indeed appear to be the case, while for other subjects the noise remains high and the identification of the underlying preference function remains difficult.
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.
Publisher Info
Paper provided by Department of Economics, University of York in its series Discussion Papers with number
99/28.
Length: Date of creation: Date of revision: Handle: RePEc:yor:yorken:99/28
Contact details of provider: Postal: Department of Economics and Related Studies, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, United Kingdom Phone: (0)1904 433776 Fax: (0)1904 433759 Email: Web page: http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/econ/ More information through EDIRC
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Michael Shallcross).
References listed on IDEAS 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.:
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.)