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 Theory is Best?

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

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'.

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://www.york.ac.uk/depts/econ/documents/dp/9931.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Department of Economics, University of York in its series Discussion Papers with number 99/31.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation:
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:yor:yorken:99/31

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).

Related research
Keywords:

Other versions of this item:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports: 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.:
  1. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  2. Gul, Faruk, 1991. "A Theory of Disappointment Aversion," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(3), pages 667-86, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  3. Shugan, Steven M, 1980. " The Cost of Thinking," Journal of Consumer Research: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly, University of Chicago Press, vol. 7(2), pages 99-111, Se.
  4. 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. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  5. 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. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  6. 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.
  7. Manski, Charles F., 1975. "Maximum score estimation of the stochastic utility model of choice," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 205-228, August. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  8. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-91, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  9. Viscusi, W Kip, 1989. " Prospective Reference Theory: Toward an Explanation of the Paradoxes," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 235-63, September.
Full references

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. John D. Hey, . "Comparing Theories: What are we Looking For?," Discussion Papers 99/18, Department of Economics, University of York. [Downloadable!]
  2. Andrea Morone, 2004. "Comparison of Mean-Variance theory and Expected-Utility theory through a Laboratory Experiment," Experimental 0402001, EconWPA. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? No RePEc service, like IDEAS, charges for the use or the display of bibliographic data.

This page was last updated on 2009-12-1.

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.