IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/e/pca113.html
   My authors  Follow this author

Enrica Carbone

Personal Details

First Name:Enrica
Middle Name:
Last Name:Carbone
Suffix:
RePEc Short-ID:pca113
Corso Gran Priorato di Malta 1, Capua

Affiliation

Dipartimento di Economia
Università degli Studi della Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli"

Capua, Italy
http://www.economia.unicampania.it/

: 0823 274063
0823 622984
Corso Gran Priorato di Malta, Capua (Caserta) 83043
RePEc:edi:fesunit (more details at EDIRC)

Research output

as
Jump to: Working papers Articles Books

Working papers

  1. Enrica Carbone & Konstantinos Georgalos & Gerardo Infante, 2016. "Individual vs. Group Decision Making: an Experiment on Dynamic Choice under Risk and Ambiguity," Working Papers 138739716, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
  2. Enrica Carbone & Xueqi Dong & John Hey, 2015. "Portfolio Choice Under Ambiguity," Discussion Papers 15/03, Department of Economics, University of York.
  3. Butler, Jeffrey & Carbone, Enrica & Conzo, Pierluigi & Spagnolo, Giancarlo, 2012. "Reputation and Entry," SITE Working Paper Series 21, Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm Institute of Transition Economics.
  4. Enrica Carbone & Gerardo Infante, 2012. "The Effect of a Short Planning Horizon on Intertemporal Consumption Choices," Labsi Experimental Economics Laboratory University of Siena 043, University of Siena.
  5. Enrica Carbone & Gerardo Infante, 2012. "Are Groups Better Planners Than Individuals? An Experimental Analysis," Labsi Experimental Economics Laboratory University of Siena 042, University of Siena.
  6. Carbone, E., 1997. "Investigation to Stochastic Preference Theory Using Exeprimental Data," University of East Anglia Discussion Papers in Economics 9701, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
  7. Enrica Carbone & John Hey, "undated". "A Test of the Principle of Optimality," Discussion Papers 99/9, Department of Economics, University of York.
  8. John Hey & Enrica Carbone, "undated". "Which Error Theory is Best?," Discussion Papers 99/31, Department of Economics, University of York.

Articles

  1. Carbone, Enrica & Infante, Gerardo, 2015. "Are groups better planners than individuals? An experimental analysis," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 112-119.
  2. Carbone, Enrica & Duffy, John, 2014. "Lifecycle consumption plans, social learning and external habits: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 413-427.
  3. Enrica Carbone & Gerardo Infante, 2014. "Comparing behavior under risk and under ambiguity in a lifecycle experiment," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(3), pages 313-322, October.
  4. Enrica Carbone, 2010. "Ownership herding and informational herding," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(12), pages 1201-1204.
  5. Ponti, Giovanni & Carbone, Enrica, 2009. "Positional learning with noise," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 225-241, December.
  6. Enrica Carbone, 2008. "Temptations and Dynamic Consistency," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 64(2), pages 229-248, March.
  7. Enrica Carbone, 2006. "Understanding intertemporal choices," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(8), pages 889-898.
  8. Enrica Carbone, 2005. "Demographics and Behaviour," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 8(3), pages 217-232, September.
  9. Enrica Carbone & John D. Hey, 2004. "The effect of unemployment on consumption: an experimental analysis," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(497), pages 660-683, July.
  10. Enrica Carbone & John Hey, 2001. "A Test of the Principle of Optimality," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 50(3), pages 263-281, May.
  11. Carbone, Enrica & Hey, John D, 2000. "Which Error Story Is Best?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 161-176, March.
  12. Carbone, Enrica, 1997. "Discriminating between Preference Functionals: A Monte Carlo Study," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 29-54, October.
  13. Carbone, Enrica, 1997. "Investigation of stochastic preference theory using experimental data," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 305-311, December.
  14. Hey, John D. & Carbone, Enrica, 1995. "Stochastic choice with deterministic preferences: An experimental investigation," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 161-167, February.
  15. Enrica Carbone & John D. Hey, 1995. "A Comparison of the Estimates of Expected Utility and Non-Expected-Utility Preference Functionals," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 20(1), pages 111-133, June.
  16. 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 223-242, May.

Books

  1. Enrica Carbone & Chris Starmer (ed.), 2007. "New Developments in Experimental Economics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, volume 0, number 3945.

Citations

Many of the citations below have been collected in an experimental project, CitEc, where a more detailed citation analysis can be found. These are citations from works listed in RePEc that could be analyzed mechanically. So far, only a minority of all works could be analyzed. See under "Corrections" how you can help improve the citation analysis.

Working papers

  1. Enrica Carbone & Xueqi Dong & John Hey, 2015. "Portfolio Choice Under Ambiguity," Discussion Papers 15/03, Department of Economics, University of York.

    Cited by:

    1. Jim Engle-Warnick & Diego Pulido & Marine de Montaignac, 2016. "Trust, ambiguity, and financial decision-making," CIRANO Working Papers 2016s-44, CIRANO.

  2. Butler, Jeffrey & Carbone, Enrica & Conzo, Pierluigi & Spagnolo, Giancarlo, 2012. "Reputation and Entry," SITE Working Paper Series 21, Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm Institute of Transition Economics.

    Cited by:

    1. Coviello, Decio & Moretti, Luigi & Spagnolo, Giancarlo & Valbonesi, Paola, 2016. "Court Efficiency and Procurement Performance," CEPR Discussion Papers 11426, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. Spagnolo, Giancarlo, 2012. "Reputation, competition, and entry in procurement," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 291-296.

  3. Enrica Carbone & Gerardo Infante, 2012. "The Effect of a Short Planning Horizon on Intertemporal Consumption Choices," Labsi Experimental Economics Laboratory University of Siena 043, University of Siena.

    Cited by:

    1. Paweł Rokita & Radosław Pietrzyk & Łukasz Feldman, 2014. "Multiobjective Optimization of Financing Household Goals with Multiple Investment Programs," Statistics in Transition new series, Główny Urząd Statystyczny (Polska), vol. 15(2), pages 243-268, March.

  4. Enrica Carbone & Gerardo Infante, 2012. "Are Groups Better Planners Than Individuals? An Experimental Analysis," Labsi Experimental Economics Laboratory University of Siena 042, University of Siena.

    Cited by:

    1. Enrica Carbone & Konstantinos Georgalos & Gerardo Infante, 2016. "Individual vs. Group Decision Making: an Experiment on Dynamic Choice under Risk and Ambiguity," Working Papers 138739716, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.

  5. Carbone, E., 1997. "Investigation to Stochastic Preference Theory Using Exeprimental Data," University of East Anglia Discussion Papers in Economics 9701, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..

    Cited by:

    1. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2016. "Taming models of prospect theory in the Wild? Estimation of Vlcek and Hens (2011)," SAFE Working Paper Series 146, Research Center SAFE - Sustainable Architecture for Finance in Europe, Goethe University Frankfurt.
    2. Mador, Galit & Sonsino, Doron & Benzion, Uri, 2000. "On complexity and lotteries' evaluation - three experimental observations," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 21(6), pages 625-637, December.

  6. Enrica Carbone & John Hey, "undated". "A Test of the Principle of Optimality," Discussion Papers 99/9, Department of Economics, University of York.

    Cited by:

    1. Amit Kothiyal & Vitalie Spinu & Peter Wakker, 2014. "An experimental test of prospect theory for predicting choice under ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 1-17, February.
    2. Antoine Nebout & Marc Willinger, 2014. "Are Non-Expected Utility individuals really Dynamically Inconsistent? Experimental Evidence," Working Papers 14-08, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier, revised Jul 2014.
    3. Muller, Wieland, 2001. "Strategies, heuristics, and the relevance of risk-aversion in a dynamic decision problem," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 493-522, August.
    4. John D. Hey, 2005. "Do People (Want To) Plan?," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 52(1), pages 122-138, February.
    5. Theodoros M. Diasakos, 2008. "Complexity and Bounded Rationality in Individual Decision Problems," Carlo Alberto Notebooks 90, Collegio Carlo Alberto.
    6. Levesque, Moren & Schade, Christian, 2005. "Intuitive optimizing: experimental findings on time allocation decisions with newly formed ventures," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 313-342, May.
    7. Maria J. Ruiz Martos, 2017. "Individual Dynamic Choice Behaviour and the Common Consequence Effect," ThE Papers 17/01, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    8. Hey, John D. & Knoll, Julia A., 2007. "How far ahead do people plan?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 8-13, July.
    9. Spiro, Daniel, 2014. "Resource prices and planning horizons," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 159-175.
    10. Yamamori, Tetsuo & Iwata, Kazuyuki & Ogawa, Akira, 2018. "Does money illusion matter in intertemporal decision making?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 465-473.
    11. Diasakos, Theodoros M, 2013. "Complexity and Bounded Rationality in Individual Decision Problemsing," SIRE Discussion Papers 2013-93, Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE).

  7. John Hey & Enrica Carbone, "undated". "Which Error Theory is Best?," Discussion Papers 99/31, Department of Economics, University of York.

    Cited by:

    1. Andrea Morone, 2005. "Comparison of Mean-Variance Theory and Expected-Utility Theory through a Laboratory Experiment," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2005-20, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    2. John D. Hey, "undated". "Comparing Theories: What are we Looking For?," Discussion Papers 99/18, Department of Economics, University of York.

Articles

  1. Carbone, Enrica & Infante, Gerardo, 2015. "Are groups better planners than individuals? An experimental analysis," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 112-119. See citations under working paper version above.
  2. Carbone, Enrica & Duffy, John, 2014. "Lifecycle consumption plans, social learning and external habits: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 413-427.

    Cited by:

    1. Yasufumi Gemma, 2016. "Money Illusion Matters for Consumption-Saving Decision-Making: An Experimental Investigation," IMES Discussion Paper Series 16-E-06, Institute for Monetary and Economic Studies, Bank of Japan.
    2. Thomas Meissner, 2016. "Intertemporal consumption and debt aversion: an experimental study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(2), pages 281-298, June.
    3. Brounen, Dirk & Koedijk, Kees G. & Pownall, Rachel A.J., 2016. "Household financial planning and savings behavior," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 95-107.
    4. Enrica Carbone & Gerardo Infante, 2012. "Are Groups Better Planners Than Individuals? An Experimental Analysis," Labsi Experimental Economics Laboratory University of Siena 042, University of Siena.
    5. Nadja König, 2016. "Household Debt and Macrodynamics - How do Income Distribution and Insolvency Regulations interact?," Macroeconomics and Finance Series 201603, Hamburg University, Department Wirtschaft und Politik.
    6. Enrica Carbone & Konstantinos Georgalos & Gerardo Infante, 2016. "Individual vs. Group Decision Making: an Experiment on Dynamic Choice under Risk and Ambiguity," Working Papers 138739716, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.

  3. Enrica Carbone & Gerardo Infante, 2014. "Comparing behavior under risk and under ambiguity in a lifecycle experiment," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(3), pages 313-322, October.

    Cited by:

    1. Jim Engle-Warnick & Diego Pulido & Marine de Montaignac, 2016. "Trust, ambiguity, and financial decision-making," CIRANO Working Papers 2016s-44, CIRANO.
    2. Enrica Carbone & Konstantinos Georgalos & Gerardo Infante, 2016. "Individual vs. Group Decision Making: an Experiment on Dynamic Choice under Risk and Ambiguity," Working Papers 138739716, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.

  4. Ponti, Giovanni & Carbone, Enrica, 2009. "Positional learning with noise," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 225-241, December.

    Cited by:

    1. Filippin, Antonio & Crosetto, Paolo, 2014. "A Reconsideration of Gender Differences in Risk Attitudes," IZA Discussion Papers 8184, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
    2. Cueva, Carlos & Iturbe-Ormaetxe, Iñigo & Mata-Pérez, Esther & Ponti, Giovanni & Sartarelli, Marcello & Yu, Haihan & Zhukova, Vita, 2016. "Cognitive (ir)reflection: New experimental evidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 81-93.
    3. Paolo Crosetto & Antonio Filippin & Janna Heider, 2013. "A Study of Outcome Reporting Bias Using Gender Differences in Risk Attitudes," CESifo Working Paper Series 4466, CESifo Group Munich.
    4. Francesco Feri & Miguel A. Mel?ndez-Jim?nez & Giovanni Ponti & Fernando Vega Redondo, 2008. "Error Cascades in Observational Learning: An Experiment on the Chinos Game," Working Papers 2008-21, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, University of Innsbruck.

  5. Enrica Carbone, 2008. "Temptations and Dynamic Consistency," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 64(2), pages 229-248, March.

    Cited by:

    1. Laibson, David I., 1997. "Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting," Scholarly Articles 4481499, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    2. Arthur E. Attema & Han Bleichrodt & Kirsten I. M. Rohde & Peter P. Wakker, 2010. "Time-Tradeoff Sequences for Analyzing Discounting and Time Inconsistency," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(11), pages 2015-2030, November.

  6. Enrica Carbone, 2006. "Understanding intertemporal choices," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(8), pages 889-898.

    Cited by:

    1. John Duffy & Yue Li, 2016. "Lifecycle Consumption Under Different Income Profiles: Experimental Evidence," Working Papers 161702, University of California-Irvine, Department of Economics.
    2. Carbone, Enrica & Duffy, John, 2014. "Lifecycle consumption plans, social learning and external habits: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 413-427.
    3. Thomas Meissner, 2016. "Intertemporal consumption and debt aversion: an experimental study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(2), pages 281-298, June.
    4. Enrica Carbone, 2008. "Temptations and Dynamic Consistency," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 64(2), pages 229-248, March.
    5. T. Ballinger & Eric Hudson & Leonie Karkoviata & Nathaniel Wilcox, 2011. "Saving behavior and cognitive abilities," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(3), pages 349-374, September.

  7. Enrica Carbone, 2005. "Demographics and Behaviour," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 8(3), pages 217-232, September.

    Cited by:

    1. Fiore, Annamaria, 2009. "Experimental Economics: Some Methodological Notes," MPRA Paper 12498, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Juan Camilo Cárdenas, 2009. "Experiments in Environment and Development," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 1(1), pages 157-182, September.
    3. Steffen Huck & Wieland Müller, 2012. "Allais for all: Revisiting the paradox in a large representative sample," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 261-293, June.
    4. Vivi Alatas & Lisa Cameron & Ananish Chaudhuri & Nisvan Erkal & Lata Gangadharan, 2006. "Subject Pool Effects in a Corruption Experiment: A Comparison of Indonesian Public Servants and Indonesian Students," Department of Economics - Working Papers Series 975, The University of Melbourne.
    5. Huck, S. & Müller, W., 2007. "Allais for All : Revisiting the Paradox," Discussion Paper 2007-99, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    6. Enrica Carbone & Gerardo Infante, 2012. "Are Groups Better Planners Than Individuals? An Experimental Analysis," Labsi Experimental Economics Laboratory University of Siena 042, University of Siena.
    7. Enrica Carbone, 2006. "Understanding intertemporal choices," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(8), pages 889-898.
    8. Feltovich, Nick & Ejebu, Ourega-Zoé, 2014. "Do positional goods inhibit saving? Evidence from a life-cycle experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PB), pages 440-454.
    9. Enrica Carbone & Konstantinos Georgalos & Gerardo Infante, 2016. "Individual vs. Group Decision Making: an Experiment on Dynamic Choice under Risk and Ambiguity," Working Papers 138739716, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.

  8. Enrica Carbone & John D. Hey, 2004. "The effect of unemployment on consumption: an experimental analysis," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(497), pages 660-683, July.

    Cited by:

    1. Enrique Fatas & Juan A. Lacomba & Francisco Lagos, 2007. "An Experimental Test On Retirement Decisions," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 45(3), pages 602-614, July.
    2. Ferruccio Ponzano & Roberto Ricciuti, 2012. "An Experimental AK Model of Growth," CESifo Working Paper Series 3744, CESifo Group Munich.
    3. Thomas Meissner & Davud Rostam-Afschar, 2014. "Do Tax Cuts Increase Consumption? An Experimental Test of Ricardian Equivalence," SFB 649 Discussion Papers SFB649DP2014-062, Sonderforschungsbereich 649, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany.
    4. Jürgen Arns & Kaushik Bhattacharya, 2005. "Modelling Aggregate Consumption Growth with Time-Varying Parameters," Bonn Econ Discussion Papers bgse15_2005, University of Bonn, Germany.
    5. Wolfgang Luhan & Johann Scharler, 2013. "Monetary Policy, Inflation Illusion and the Taylor Principle: An Experimental Study," Working Papers 2013-03, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, University of Innsbruck.
    6. Enrica Carbone, 2005. "Demographics and Behaviour," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 8(3), pages 217-232, September.
    7. Roberto Ricciuti, 2005. "Bringing Macroeconomics into the Lab," Labsi Experimental Economics Laboratory University of Siena 004, University of Siena.
    8. Battaglini, Marco & Nunnari, Salvatore & Palfrey, Thomas R, 2016. "The Political Economy of Public Debt: A Laboratory Study," CEPR Discussion Papers 11357, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    9. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2012. "A test of independence of discounting from quality of life," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 22-34.
    10. Brosig-Koch, Jeannette & Keldenich, Klemens, 2012. "The More You Know? – Consumption Behavior and the Communication of Economic Information," Ruhr Economic Papers 387, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    11. Carbone, Enrica & Duffy, John, 2014. "Lifecycle consumption plans, social learning and external habits: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 413-427.
    12. Thomas Meissner, 2016. "Intertemporal consumption and debt aversion: an experimental study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(2), pages 281-298, June.
    13. Luhan, Wolfgang J. & Scharler, Johann, 2014. "Inflation illusion and the Taylor principle: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 94-110.
    14. Charness, Gary & Kuhn, Peter, 2011. "Lab Labor: What Can Labor Economists Learn from the Lab?," Handbook of Labor Economics, Elsevier.
    15. Enrica Carbone & Gerardo Infante, 2012. "Are Groups Better Planners Than Individuals? An Experimental Analysis," Labsi Experimental Economics Laboratory University of Siena 042, University of Siena.
    16. T. Parker Ballinger & Michael G. Palumbo & Nathaniel T. Wilcox, 2003. "Precautionary saving and social learning across generations: an experiment," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 113(490), pages 920-947, October.
    17. Enrica Carbone & Gerardo Infante, 2014. "Comparing behavior under risk and under ambiguity in a lifecycle experiment," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(3), pages 313-322, October.
    18. Enrica Carbone, 2006. "Understanding intertemporal choices," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(8), pages 889-898.
    19. Sinitskaya, Ekaterina, 2014. "Computational modeling of an economy using elements of artificial intelligence," ISU General Staff Papers 201401010800005291, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    20. T. Ballinger & Eric Hudson & Leonie Karkoviata & Nathaniel Wilcox, 2011. "Saving behavior and cognitive abilities," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(3), pages 349-374, September.
    21. Enrique Fatás & Juan A. Lacomba & Francisco M. Lagos & Ana I. Moro, 2008. "Experimental tests on consumption, savings and pensions," ThE Papers 08/14, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    22. Martin Geiger & Wolfgang Luhan & Johann Scharler, 2015. "When do Fiscal Consolidations Lead to Consumption Booms? Lessons from a Laboratory Experiment," Working Papers 2015-06, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, University of Innsbruck.
    23. Tomoki Kitamura & Yasuhiro Yonezawa & Munenori Nakasato, 2010. "Saving Behavior under the Influence of Income Risk: An Experimental Study," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 30(2), pages 967-974.
    24. Enrique Fatás & Juan Lacomba & Francisco Lagos & Ana Moro-Egido, 2013. "An experimental test on dynamic consumption and lump-sum pensions," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 4(4), pages 393-413, November.
    25. Feltovich, Nick & Ejebu, Ourega-Zoé, 2014. "Do positional goods inhibit saving? Evidence from a life-cycle experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PB), pages 440-454.
    26. Koehler, Derek J. & Langstaff, Jesse & Liu, Wu-Qi, 2015. "A simulated financial savings task for studying consumption and retirement decision making," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 89-97.
    27. M. I. Lau & T. Neugebauer & U. Schmidt, 2014. "Preface," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(3), pages 287-290, October.
    28. Enrica Carbone & Konstantinos Georgalos & Gerardo Infante, 2016. "Individual vs. Group Decision Making: an Experiment on Dynamic Choice under Risk and Ambiguity," Working Papers 138739716, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.

  9. Enrica Carbone & John Hey, 2001. "A Test of the Principle of Optimality," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 50(3), pages 263-281, May.
    See citations under working paper version above.
  10. Carbone, Enrica & Hey, John D, 2000. "Which Error Story Is Best?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 161-176, March.

    Cited by:

    1. Birnbaum, Michael H. & Gutierrez, Roman J., 2007. "Testing for intransitivity of preferences predicted by a lexicographic semi-order," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 104(1), pages 96-112, September.
    2. John Hey & Andrea Morone & Ulrich Schmidt, 2009. "Noise and bias in eliciting preferences," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 213-235, December.
    3. Adam S. Booij & Bernard M.S. Van Praag & Gijs Van De Kuilen, 2009. "A Parametric Analysis of Prospect Theory's Functionals for the General Population," CESifo Working Paper Series 2609, CESifo Group Munich.
    4. Olivier L'Haridon & Mohammed Abdellaoui & A. Driouchi, 2011. "Risk aversion elicitation: reconciling tractability and bias minimization," Post-Print hal-00609543, HAL.
    5. Michael H. Birnbaum & Jeffrey P. Bahra, 2012. "Separating response variability from structural inconsistency to test models of risky decision making," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(4), pages 402-426, July.
    6. 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.
    7. Yun-shil Cha & Michelle Choi & Ying Guo & Michel Regenwetter & Chris Zwilling, 2013. "Reply: Birnbaum's (2012) statistical tests of independence have unknown Type-I error rates and do not replicate within participant," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(1), pages 55-73, January.
    8. Michael Birnbaum & Ulrich Schmidt, 2010. "Testing transitivity in choice under risk," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(4), pages 599-614, October.
    9. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2016. "Taming models of prospect theory in the Wild? Estimation of Vlcek and Hens (2011)," SAFE Working Paper Series 146, Research Center SAFE - Sustainable Architecture for Finance in Europe, Goethe University Frankfurt.
    10. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten, 2016. "On the applicability of maximum likelihood methods: From experimental to financial data," SAFE Working Paper Series 148, Research Center SAFE - Sustainable Architecture for Finance in Europe, Goethe University Frankfurt.
    11. Michael H. Birnbaum & Daniel Navarro-Martinez & Christoph Ungemach & Neil Stewart & Edika G. Quispe-Torreblanca, 2016. "Risky Decision making: Testing for violations of transitivity predicted by an editing mechanism," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(1), pages 75-91, January.
    12. Michael Birnbaum & Ulrich Schmidt, 2008. "An experimental investigation of violations of transitivity in choice under uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 77-91, August.
    13. Gijs Kuilen & Peter Wakker, 2006. "Learning in the Allais paradox," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 155-164, December.
    14. Birnbaum, Michael H. & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2006. "Empirical Tests of Intransitivity Predicted by Models of Risky Choice," Economics Working Papers 2006-10, Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel, Department of Economics.
    15. Booij, Adam S. & van Praag, Bernard M.S., 2009. "A simultaneous approach to the estimation of risk aversion and the subjective time discount rate," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(1-2), pages 374-388, May.
    16. Birnbaum, Michael H., 2007. "Tests of branch splitting and branch-splitting independence in Allais paradoxes with positive and mixed consequences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 154-173, March.
    17. Birnbaum, Michael H., 2004. "Tests of rank-dependent utility and cumulative prospect theory in gambles represented by natural frequencies: Effects of format, event framing, and branch splitting," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 40-65, September.
    18. Michael H. Birnbaum, 2013. "True-and-error models violate independence and yet they are testable," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(6), pages 717-737, November.
    19. Henry Stott, 2006. "Cumulative prospect theory's functional menagerie," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 101-130, March.
    20. David M. Bruner, 2017. "Does decision error decrease with risk aversion?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(1), pages 259-273, March.
    21. John Hey, 2005. "Why We Should Not Be Silent About Noise," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 8(4), pages 325-345, December.
    22. Clintin P. Davis-Stober & Nicholas Brown, 2011. "A shift in strategy or "error"? Strategy classification over multiple stochastic specifications," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(8), pages 800-813, December.
    23. Serge Blondel, 2002. "Testing Theories of Choice Under Risk: Estimation of Individual Functionals," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 251-265, May.
    24. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2007. "Stochastic expected utility theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 259-286, June.
    25. Drichoutis, Andreas & Lusk, Jayson, 2012. "Judging statistical models of individual decision making under risk using in- and out-of-sample criteria," MPRA Paper 38951, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    26. 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.
    27. Marley, A. A. J., 2002. "Random utility models and their applications: recent developments," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 289-302, July.

  11. Carbone, Enrica, 1997. "Discriminating between Preference Functionals: A Monte Carlo Study," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 29-54, October.

    Cited by:

    1. Andrea Morone, 2005. "Comparison of Mean-Variance Theory and Expected-Utility Theory through a Laboratory Experiment," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2005-20, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    2. Cheng-Min Feng & Chao-Chung Kang & Haider Ali Khan, 2002. "On Modelling Negotiations within a Dynamic Multi-objective Programming Framework: Analysis of Risk Measurement with an Application to Large BOT Projects," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-161, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.
    3. John D. Hey, "undated". "Comparing Theories: What are we Looking For?," Discussion Papers 99/18, Department of Economics, University of York.

  12. Carbone, Enrica, 1997. "Investigation of stochastic preference theory using experimental data," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 305-311, December.

    Cited by:

    1. John Hey & Andrea Morone & Ulrich Schmidt, 2009. "Noise and bias in eliciting preferences," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 213-235, December.
    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. John K. Dagsvik, 2006. "Axiomatization of Stochastic Models for Choice under Uncertainty," Discussion Papers 465, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    4. David M. Bruner, 2009. "Changing the Probability versus Changing the Reward," Working Papers 09-04, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    5. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2012. "Probabilistic choice and stochastic dominance," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 50(1), pages 59-83, May.
    6. Andrea Morone, 2005. "Comparison of Mean-Variance Theory and Expected-Utility Theory through a Laboratory Experiment," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2005-20, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    7. Pavlo R. Blavatskyy & Ganna Pogrebna, 2010. "Models of stochastic choice and decision theories: why both are important for analyzing decisions," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(6), pages 963-986.
    8. Chris Starmer, 2000. "Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 332-382, June.
    9. Blavatskyy, Pavlo R., 2008. "Stochastic utility theorem," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(11), pages 1049-1056, December.
    10. David Buschena & David Zilberman, 2008. "Generalized expected utility, heteroscedastic error, and path dependence in risky choice," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 201-201, April.
    11. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2016. "Taming models of prospect theory in the Wild? Estimation of Vlcek and Hens (2011)," SAFE Working Paper Series 146, Research Center SAFE - Sustainable Architecture for Finance in Europe, Goethe University Frankfurt.
    12. Wilcox, Nathaniel T., 2011. "'Stochastically more risk averse:' A contextual theory of stochastic discrete choice under risk," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 162(1), pages 89-104, May.
    13. John K. Dagsvik, 2005. "Choice under Uncertainty and Bounded Rationality," Discussion Papers 409, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    14. Egil Matsen & Bjarne Strøm, 2006. "Joker: Choice in a simple game with large stakes," Working Paper Series 8307, Department of Economics, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
    15. Birnbaum, Michael H., 2004. "Tests of rank-dependent utility and cumulative prospect theory in gambles represented by natural frequencies: Effects of format, event framing, and branch splitting," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 40-65, September.
    16. Henry Stott, 2006. "Cumulative prospect theory's functional menagerie," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 101-130, March.
    17. David M. Bruner, 2017. "Does decision error decrease with risk aversion?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(1), pages 259-273, March.
    18. John Hey, 2005. "Why We Should Not Be Silent About Noise," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 8(4), pages 325-345, December.
    19. Mador, Galit & Sonsino, Doron & Benzion, Uri, 2000. "On complexity and lotteries' evaluation - three experimental observations," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 21(6), pages 625-637, December.
    20. John D. Hey, "undated". "Comparing Theories: What are we Looking For?," Discussion Papers 99/18, Department of Economics, University of York.
    21. John Hey, 2001. "Does Repetition Improve Consistency?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 4(1), pages 5-54, June.

  13. Hey, John D. & Carbone, Enrica, 1995. "Stochastic choice with deterministic preferences: An experimental investigation," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 161-167, February.

    Cited by:

    1. Hey, John D., 1995. "Experimental investigations of errors in decision making under risk," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 39(3-4), pages 633-640, April.
    2. Yun-shil Cha & Michelle Choi & Ying Guo & Michel Regenwetter & Chris Zwilling, 2013. "Reply: Birnbaum's (2012) statistical tests of independence have unknown Type-I error rates and do not replicate within participant," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(1), pages 55-73, January.
    3. Andrea Morone, 2005. "Comparison of Mean-Variance Theory and Expected-Utility Theory through a Laboratory Experiment," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2005-20, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    4. Blavatskyy, Pavlo R., 2008. "Stochastic utility theorem," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(11), pages 1049-1056, December.
    5. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2016. "Taming models of prospect theory in the Wild? Estimation of Vlcek and Hens (2011)," SAFE Working Paper Series 146, Research Center SAFE - Sustainable Architecture for Finance in Europe, Goethe University Frankfurt.
    6. Wilcox, Nathaniel T., 2011. "'Stochastically more risk averse:' A contextual theory of stochastic discrete choice under risk," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 162(1), pages 89-104, May.
    7. Charles Mason & Jason Shogren & Chad Settle & John List, 2005. "Investigating Risky Choices Over Losses Using Experimental Data," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 187-215, September.
    8. John Hey, 2005. "Why We Should Not Be Silent About Noise," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 8(4), pages 325-345, December.
    9. John D. Hey, "undated". "Comparing Theories: What are we Looking For?," Discussion Papers 99/18, Department of Economics, University of York.
    10. Blavatskyy, Pavlo, 2016. "Probability weighting and L-moments," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 255(1), pages 103-109.
    11. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2007. "Stochastic expected utility theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 259-286, June.
    12. Marley, A. A. J., 2002. "Random utility models and their applications: recent developments," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 289-302, July.

  14. Enrica Carbone & John D. Hey, 1995. "A Comparison of the Estimates of Expected Utility and Non-Expected-Utility Preference Functionals," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 20(1), pages 111-133, June.

    Cited by:

    1. Bruno Jullien & Bernard Salanié, 1997. "Estimating Preferences under Risk : The Case of Racetrack Bettors," Working Papers 97-39, Center for Research in Economics and Statistics.
    2. Nuno Garoupa, 1998. "Crime and punishment: Further results," Economics Working Papers 344, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.

  15. 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 223-242, May.

    Cited by:

    1. David M. Bruner, 2009. "Changing the Probability versus Changing the Reward," Working Papers 09-04, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    2. John Hey & Enrica Carbone, "undated". "Which Error Theory is Best?," Discussion Papers 99/31, Department of Economics, University of York.
    3. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2016. "Taming models of prospect theory in the Wild? Estimation of Vlcek and Hens (2011)," SAFE Working Paper Series 146, Research Center SAFE - Sustainable Architecture for Finance in Europe, Goethe University Frankfurt.
    4. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten, 2016. "On the applicability of maximum likelihood methods: From experimental to financial data," SAFE Working Paper Series 148, Research Center SAFE - Sustainable Architecture for Finance in Europe, Goethe University Frankfurt.
    5. Henry Stott, 2006. "Cumulative prospect theory's functional menagerie," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 101-130, March.
    6. David M. Bruner, 2017. "Does decision error decrease with risk aversion?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(1), pages 259-273, March.
    7. John D. Hey, "undated". "Comparing Theories: What are we Looking For?," Discussion Papers 99/18, Department of Economics, University of York.
    8. Bertrand Munier, 1995. "Méthodes expérimentales d'évaluation des théories du risque," Revue Économique, Programme National Persée, vol. 46(3), pages 939-949.

Books

    Sorry, no citations of books recorded.

More information

Research fields, statistics, top rankings, if available.

Statistics

Access and download statistics for all items

Co-authorship network on CollEc

NEP Fields

NEP is an announcement service for new working papers, with a weekly report in each of many fields. This author has had 10 papers announced in NEP. These are the fields, ordered by number of announcements, along with their dates. If the author is listed in the directory of specialists for this field, a link is also provided.
  1. NEP-EXP: Experimental Economics (8) 1999-10-13 1999-11-28 2012-12-22 2012-12-22 2013-01-26 2014-06-02 2015-02-28 2016-11-20. Author is listed
  2. NEP-COM: Industrial Competition (5) 2012-12-15 2013-01-07 2013-01-26 2013-07-20 2014-06-02. Author is listed
  3. NEP-CBE: Cognitive & Behavioural Economics (4) 2012-12-22 2012-12-22 2015-02-28 2016-11-20
  4. NEP-CTA: Contract Theory & Applications (4) 2013-01-07 2013-01-26 2013-07-20 2014-06-02
  5. NEP-IND: Industrial Organization (4) 1999-10-13 2012-12-15 2013-07-20 2014-06-02
  6. NEP-UPT: Utility Models & Prospect Theory (3) 2012-12-22 2015-02-28 2016-11-20
  7. NEP-REG: Regulation (2) 2013-01-26 2013-07-20
  8. NEP-BEC: Business Economics (1) 2013-07-20
  9. NEP-CDM: Collective Decision-Making (1) 2016-11-20
  10. NEP-EVO: Evolutionary Economics (1) 2012-12-22
  11. NEP-MAC: Macroeconomics (1) 2016-11-20
  12. NEP-PPM: Project, Program & Portfolio Management (1) 2013-07-20
  13. NEP-PUB: Public Finance (1) 2013-01-26
  14. NEP-SBM: Small Business Management (1) 2013-07-20

Corrections

All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. For general information on how to correct material on RePEc, see these instructions.

To update listings or check citations waiting for approval, Enrica Carbone should log into the RePEc Author Service.

To make corrections to the bibliographic information of a particular item, find the technical contact on the abstract page of that item. There, details are also given on how to add or correct references and citations.

To link different versions of the same work, where versions have a different title, use this form. Note that if the versions have a very similar title and are in the author's profile, the links will usually be created automatically.

Please note that most corrections can take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.