IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolet/v57y1997i3p305-311.html

Investigation of stochastic preference theory using experimental data

Author

Listed:
  • Carbone, Enrica

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Carbone, Enrica, 1997. "Investigation of stochastic preference theory using experimental data," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 305-311, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:57:y:1997:i:3:p:305-311
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165-1765(97)00244-9
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John D. Hey & Chris Orme, 2018. "Investigating Generalizations Of Expected Utility Theory Using Experimental Data," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 3, pages 63-98, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 1995. "Incorporating a stochastic element into decision theories," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 39(3-4), pages 641-648, April.
    3. Harless, David W & Camerer, Colin F, 1994. "The Predictive Utility of Generalized Expected Utility Theories," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(6), pages 1251-1289, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel A. Ballester, 2014. "Discrete choice estimation of risk aversion," Economics Working Papers 1443, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    2. Blavatskyy, Pavlo R., 2006. "Violations of betweenness or random errors?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 34-38, April.
    3. Pace, Noemi & Daidone, Silvio, 2024. "Impact of development interventions on individual risk preferences: Evidence from a field-lab experiment and survey data," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    4. Glenn W. Harrison & John A. List, 2004. "Field Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1009-1055, December.
    5. Egil Matsen & Bjarne Strom, 2006. "Joker: Choice in a simple game with large stakes," Natural Field Experiments 00236, The Field Experiments Website.
    6. Blavatskyy, Pavlo, 2013. "Which decision theory?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 40-44.
    7. Di Caprio, Debora & Santos-Arteaga, Francisco J., 2011. "Cardinal versus ordinal criteria in choice under risk with disconnected utility ranges," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(4-5), pages 588-594.
    8. Dagsvik, John K., 2008. "Axiomatization of stochastic models for choice under uncertainty," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 341-370, May.
    9. Blavatskyy, Pavlo R., 2008. "Stochastic utility theorem," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(11), pages 1049-1056, December.
    10. Ferdinand Vieider, 2016. "Certainty Preference, Random Choice, and Loss Aversion: A Comment on "Violence and Risk Preference: Experimental Evidence from Afghanistan"," Economics Discussion Papers em-dp2016-06, Department of Economics, University of Reading.
    11. 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.
    12. Levon Barseghyan & Francesca Molinari & Ted O'Donoghue & Joshua C. Teitelbaum, 2013. "The Nature of Risk Preferences: Evidence from Insurance Choices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(6), pages 2499-2529, October.
    13. Blavatskyy, Pavlo, 2015. "Behavior in the centipede game: A decision-theoretical perspective," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 117-122.
    14. Blavatskyy, Pavlo R., 2011. "Probabilistic risk aversion with an arbitrary outcome set," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 112(1), pages 34-37, July.
    15. Yukalov, V.I., 2021. "A resolution of St. Petersburg paradox," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    16. Sarah Jacobson & Ragan Petrie, 2009. "Learning from mistakes: What do inconsistent choices over risk tell us?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 143-158, April.
    17. Bocqueho, Geraldine & Jacquet, Florence & Reynaud, Arnaud, 2011. "Expected Utility or Prospect Theory Maximizers? Results from a Structural Model based on Field-experiment Data," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114257, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten, 2017. "On the applicability of maximum likelihood methods: From experimental to financial data," SAFE Working Paper Series 148, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2017.
    19. Veld, Chris & Veld-Merkoulova, Yulia V., 2008. "The risk perceptions of individual investors," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 226-252, April.
    20. Schmidt, Ulrich & Neugebauer, Tibor, 2003. "An Experimental Investigation of the Role of Errors for Explaining Violations of Expected Utility," Hannover Economic Papers (HEP) dp-279, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät.

    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:eee:ecolet:v:57:y:1997:i:3:p:305-311. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolet .

    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.