IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/econom/v65y1998i260p581-598.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jinkwon Lee, 2008. "The effect of the background risk in a simple chance improving decision model," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 19-41, February.
    2. Glenn W. Harrison & John A. List, 2004. "Field Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1009-1055, December.
    3. Harrison, Glenn W., 2008. "Neuroeconomics: A Critical Reconsideration," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(3), pages 303-344, November.
    4. Balcombe, Kelvin & Fraser, Iain, 2024. "A Note on an Alternative Approach to Experimental Design of Lottery Prospects," MPRA Paper 119743, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Georg D. Granic, 2023. "Does choice change preferences? An incentivized test of the mere choice effect," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(3), pages 499-521, July.
    6. Blavatskyy, Pavlo R., 2013. "The reverse Allais paradox," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 119(1), pages 60-64.
    7. Guo, Liang, 2021. "Contextual deliberation and the choice-valuation preference reversal," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    8. Pavlo R. Blavatskyy, 2010. "Reverse Common Ratio Effect," IEW - Working Papers 478, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    9. Ingwersen, Nicholas & Frankenberg, Elizabeth & Thomas, Duncan, 2023. "Evolution of risk aversion over five years after a major natural disaster," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    10. Blavatskyy, Pavlo, 2015. "Behavior in the centipede game: A decision-theoretical perspective," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 117-122.
    11. Cunningham, Thomas, 2013. "Biases and Implicit Knowledge," MPRA Paper 50292, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Jan Hausfeld & Sven Resnjanskij, 2017. "Risky Decisions and the Opportunity Costs of Time," TWI Research Paper Series 108, Thurgauer Wirtschaftsinstitut, Universität Konstanz.
    13. Nicholas Ingwersen & Elizabeth Frankenberg & Duncan Thomas, 2023. "Evolution of Risk Aversion over Five Years after a Major Natural Disaster," NBER Working Papers 31102, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Glenn W. Harrison & Jia Min Ng, 2018. "Welfare effects of insurance contract non-performance," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 43(1), pages 39-76, May.
    15. 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.
    16. Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten Igel & Rutström, Elisabet E., 2010. "Behavioral econometrics for psychologists," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 553-576, August.
    17. Henry Stott, 2006. "Cumulative prospect theory's functional menagerie," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 101-130, March.
    18. Pavlo Blavatskyy & Valentyn Panchenko & Andreas Ortmann, 2023. "How common is the common-ratio effect?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(2), pages 253-272, April.
    19. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2007. "Stochastic expected utility theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 259-286, June.
    20. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2021. "Probabilistic independence axiom," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 46(1), pages 21-34, March.
    21. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2018. "A second-generation disappointment aversion theory of decision making under risk," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(1), pages 29-60, January.

    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.