IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/econom/v65y1998i260p581-598.html

Testing Different Stochastic Specificationsof Risky Choice

Author

Listed:
  • Graham Loomes
  • Robert Sugden

Abstract

The Harless–Camerer (HC), Hey–Orme (HO) and random preference (RP) models of stochastic variation in choice under uncertainty are compared. Implications of these models, including some that are independent of the deterministic theory with which they are combined, are tested in an experiment in which participants respond to decision problems twice. The HC model generally performs poorly; the HO model predicts more violations of dominance than are observed; while the RP model fails to account for those few violations which do occur. Additional regularities are observed which are inconsistent with all three models when combined with expected utility theory.

Suggested Citation

  • Graham Loomes & Robert Sugden, 1998. "Testing Different Stochastic Specificationsof Risky Choice," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 65(260), pages 581-598, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:econom:v:65:y:1998:i:260:p:581-598
    DOI: 10.1111/1468-0335.00147
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0335.00147
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1468-0335.00147?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    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:bla:econom:v:65:y:1998:i:260:p:581-598. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.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.