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. Jim Engle-Warnick & Diego Pulido & Marine de Montaignac, 2016. "Trust, ambiguity, and financial decision-making," CIRANO Working Papers 2016s-44, CIRANO.
    2. 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.
    3. Enrica Carbone & Konstantinos Georgalos & Gerardo Infante, 2019. "Individual vs. group decision-making: an experiment on dynamic choice under risk and ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 87(1), pages 87-122, July.
    4. 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. 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, 2019. "Individual vs. group decision-making: an experiment on dynamic choice under risk and ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 87(1), pages 87-122, July.
    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.

  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, 2019. "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. Jochen Jungeilges & Tatyana Ryazanova, 2018. "Output volatility and savings in a stochastic Goodwin economy," Eurasian Economic Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 8(3), pages 355-380, December.
    3. 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.
    4. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2018. "A Refinement of Logit Quantal Response Equilibrium," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(02), pages 1-14, June.

  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. Maria J. Ruiz Martos, 2018. "Sequential Common Consequence Effect and Incentives," ThE Papers 18/04, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    6. John D. Hey & Julia A. Knoll, 2018. "How far ahead do people plan?," World Scientific Book Chapters,in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 12, pages 301-306 World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. Theodoros M. Diasakos, 2008. "Complexity and Bounded Rationality in Individual Decision Problems," Carlo Alberto Notebooks 90, Collegio Carlo Alberto.
    8. 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.
    9. 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..
    10. Spiro, Daniel, 2014. "Resource prices and planning horizons," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 159-175.
    11. 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.
    12. 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 Hey, 2018. "Comparing Theories: What Are We Looking For?," World Scientific Book Chapters,in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 14, pages 331-352 World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..

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. Camille Cornand & Frank Heinemann, 2018. "Experiments on macroeconomics: methods and applications," Post-Print halshs-01902045, HAL.
    3. Dina Tasneem & Audrey Azerot & Marine de Montaignac & Jim Engle-Warnick, 2018. "A Laboratory Study of Nudge with Retirement Savings," CIRANO Working Papers 2018s-23, CIRANO.
    4. Niemi, Janne, 2018. "Short-run and long-run food import elasticities with persistent trading habits," Working Papers 111, VATT Institute for Economic Research.
    5. 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.
    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 & Konstantinos Georgalos & Gerardo Infante, 2019. "Individual vs. group decision-making: an experiment on dynamic choice under risk and ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 87(1), pages 87-122, July.
    8. Dina Tasneem & Jim Engle-Warnick, 2018. "Decision Rules for Precautionary and Retirement Savings," CIRANO Working Papers 2018s-22, CIRANO.
    9. Nadja König, 2016. "Household Debt and Macrodynamics - How do Income Distribution and Insolvency Regulations interact?," Macroeconomics and Finance Series 201603, University of Hamburg, Department of Socioeconomics.
    10. 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. See citations under working paper version above.
  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 of Labor Economics (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. Antonio FILIPPIN & Paolo CROSETTO, 2014. "A Reconsideration of Gender Differences in Risk Attitudes," Departmental Working Papers 2014-01, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.

  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. Dina Tasneem & Audrey Azerot & Marine de Montaignac & Jim Engle-Warnick, 2018. "A Laboratory Study of Nudge with Retirement Savings," CIRANO Working Papers 2018s-23, CIRANO.
    2. John Duffy & Yue Li, 2016. "Lifecycle Consumption Under Different Income Profiles: Experimental Evidence," Working Papers 161702, University of California-Irvine, Department of Economics.
    3. 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.
    4. Enrica Carbone, 2008. "Temptations and Dynamic Consistency," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 64(2), pages 229-248, March.
    5. Dina Tasneem & Audrey Azerot & Marine de Montaignac & Jim Engle-Warnick, 2018. "A Laboratory Study of the Effect of Financial Literacy Training on Retirement Savings," CIRANO Working Papers 2018s-24, CIRANO.
    6. 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. Dina Tasneem & Jim Engle-Warnick, 2018. "Decision Rules for Precautionary and Retirement Savings," CIRANO Working Papers 2018s-22, CIRANO.

  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. Dina Tasneem & Audrey Azerot & Marine de Montaignac & Jim Engle-Warnick, 2018. "A Laboratory Study of the Effect of Financial Literacy Training on Retirement Savings," CIRANO Working Papers 2018s-24, CIRANO.
    7. 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.
    8. Enrica Carbone, 2006. "Understanding intertemporal choices," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(8), pages 889-898.
    9. Enrica Carbone & Konstantinos Georgalos & Gerardo Infante, 2019. "Individual vs. group decision-making: an experiment on dynamic choice under risk and ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 87(1), pages 87-122, July.
    10. Dina Tasneem & Jim Engle-Warnick, 2018. "Decision Rules for Precautionary and Retirement Savings," CIRANO Working Papers 2018s-22, CIRANO.
    11. 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.
    12. 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. Arns, Jürgen & Bhattacharya, Kaushik, 2005. "Modelling Aggregate Consumption Growth with Time-Varying Parameters," Bonn Econ Discussion Papers 15/2005, University of Bonn, Bonn Graduate School of Economics (BGSE).
    3. Ferruccio Ponzano & Roberto Ricciuti, 2012. "An Experimental AK Model of Growth," CESifo Working Paper Series 3744, CESifo Group Munich.
    4. 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.
    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. Battaglini, Marco & Nunnari, Salvatore & Palfrey, Thomas R, 2018. "The Political Economy of Public Debt: A Laboratory Study," CEPR Discussion Papers 13097, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    8. Roberto Ricciuti, 2005. "Bringing Macroeconomics into the Lab," Labsi Experimental Economics Laboratory University of Siena 004, University of Siena.
    9. Dina Tasneem & Audrey Azerot & Marine de Montaignac & Jim Engle-Warnick, 2018. "A Laboratory Study of Nudge with Retirement Savings," CIRANO Working Papers 2018s-23, CIRANO.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Charness, Gary & Kuhn, Peter, 2011. "Lab Labor: What Can Labor Economists Learn from the Lab?," Handbook of Labor Economics, Elsevier.
    16. Dina Tasneem & Audrey Azerot & Marine de Montaignac & Jim Engle-Warnick, 2018. "A Laboratory Study of the Effect of Financial Literacy Training on Retirement Savings," CIRANO Working Papers 2018s-24, CIRANO.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Thomas Meissner, 2013. "Intertemporal Consumption and Debt Aversion:An Experimental Study," SFB 649 Discussion Papers SFB649DP2013-045, Sonderforschungsbereich 649, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany.
    20. Enrica Carbone, 2006. "Understanding intertemporal choices," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(8), pages 889-898.
    21. Sinitskaya, Ekaterina, 2014. "Computational modeling of an economy using elements of artificial intelligence," ISU General Staff Papers 201401010800005291, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    22. 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.
    23. 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..
    24. Enrica Carbone & Konstantinos Georgalos & Gerardo Infante, 2019. "Individual vs. group decision-making: an experiment on dynamic choice under risk and ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 87(1), pages 87-122, July.
    25. Ferruccio Ponzano & Roberto Ricciuti, 2018. "Growth and Inequality in an Experimental AK Model," Italian Economic Journal: A Continuation of Rivista Italiana degli Economisti and Giornale degli Economisti, Springer;Società Italiana degli Economisti (Italian Economic Association), vol. 4(2), pages 313-330, July.
    26. 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.
    27. 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.
    28. 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.
    29. Dina Tasneem & Jim Engle-Warnick, 2018. "Decision Rules for Precautionary and Retirement Savings," CIRANO Working Papers 2018s-22, CIRANO.
    30. 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.
    31. 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.
    32. M. I. Lau & T. Neugebauer & U. Schmidt, 2014. "Preface," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(3), pages 287-290, October.
    33. 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.
    34. Kendall, Chad & Oprea, Ryan, 2018. "Are biased beliefs fit to survive? An experimental test of the market selection hypothesis," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 342-371.
    35. Enrica Carbone & John Hey & Tibor Neugebauer, 2018. "An Experimental Comparison of Two Exchange Mechanisms, An Asset Market versus a Credit Market," Discussion Papers 18/08, Department of Economics, University of York.

  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 & emeritus Bernard M.S. van Praag, 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, 2019. "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, 2017. "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. Golo-Friedrich Bauermeister & Daniel Hermann & Oliver Musshoff, 2018. "Consistency of determined risk attitudes and probability weightings across different elicitation methods," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(4), pages 627-644, June.
    13. 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.
    14. Gijs Kuilen & Peter Wakker, 2006. "Learning in the Allais paradox," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 155-164, December.
    15. John D. Hey, 2018. "Why We Should Not Be Silent About Noise," World Scientific Book Chapters,in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 13, pages 309-329 World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.
    21. Henry Stott, 2006. "Cumulative prospect theory's functional menagerie," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 101-130, March.
    22. David M. Bruner, 2017. "Does decision error decrease with risk aversion?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(1), pages 259-273, March.
    23. 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.
    24. 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.
    25. Meraner, Manuela & Musshoff, Oliver & Finger, Robert, 2018. "Using involvement to reduce inconsistencies in risk preference elicitation," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 22-33.
    26. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2007. "Stochastic expected utility theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 259-286, June.
    27. 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.
    28. Raffaello Seri & Samuele Centorrino & Michele Bernasconi, 2019. "Nonparametric Estimation and Inference in Economic and Psychological Experiments," Papers 1904.11156, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2019.
    29. 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.
    30. 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 Hey, 2018. "Comparing Theories: What Are We Looking For?," World Scientific Book Chapters,in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 14, pages 331-352 World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..

  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 D. Hey, 2018. "Does Repetition Improve Consistency?," World Scientific Book Chapters,in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 2, pages 13-62 World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. John K. Dagsvik, 2006. "Axiomatization of Stochastic Models for Choice under Uncertainty," Discussion Papers 465, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    5. David M. Bruner, 2009. "Changing the Probability versus Changing the Reward," Working Papers 09-04, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Blavatskyy, Pavlo R., 2008. "Stochastic utility theorem," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(11), pages 1049-1056, December.
    11. 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.
    12. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2019. "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.
    13. 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.
    14. John D. Hey, 2018. "Why We Should Not Be Silent About Noise," World Scientific Book Chapters,in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 13, pages 309-329 World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    15. John K. Dagsvik, 2005. "Choice under Uncertainty and Bounded Rationality," Discussion Papers 409, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    16. 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.
    17. Jochen Jungeilges & Tatyana Ryazanova, 2018. "Output volatility and savings in a stochastic Goodwin economy," Eurasian Economic Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 8(3), pages 355-380, December.
    18. 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.
    19. Henry Stott, 2006. "Cumulative prospect theory's functional menagerie," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 101-130, March.
    20. John Hey, 2018. "Comparing Theories: What Are We Looking For?," World Scientific Book Chapters,in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 14, pages 331-352 World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    21. David M. Bruner, 2017. "Does decision error decrease with risk aversion?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(1), pages 259-273, March.
    22. 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.
    23. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2018. "A Refinement of Logit Quantal Response Equilibrium," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(02), pages 1-14, 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. John A. Clithero & Jae Joon Lee & Joshua Tasoff, 2019. "Supervised Machine Learning for Eliciting Individual Reservation Values," Papers 1904.13329, arXiv.org.
    6. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2019. "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.
    7. 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.
    8. John D. Hey, 2018. "Why We Should Not Be Silent About Noise," World Scientific Book Chapters,in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 13, pages 309-329 World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    9. Jochen Jungeilges & Tatyana Ryazanova, 2018. "Output volatility and savings in a stochastic Goodwin economy," Eurasian Economic Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 8(3), pages 355-380, December.
    10. John Hey, 2018. "Comparing Theories: What Are We Looking For?," World Scientific Book Chapters,in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 14, pages 331-352 World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    11. 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.
    12. Blavatskyy, Pavlo, 2018. "Fechner’s strong utility model for choice among n>2 alternatives: Risky lotteries, Savage acts, and intertemporal payoffs," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 75-82.
    13. Blavatskyy, Pavlo, 2016. "Probability weighting and L-moments," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 255(1), pages 103-109.
    14. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2007. "Stochastic expected utility theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 259-286, June.
    15. 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, 2019. "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, 2017. "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. John Hey, 2018. "Comparing Theories: What Are We Looking For?," World Scientific Book Chapters,in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 14, pages 331-352 World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. David M. Bruner, 2017. "Does decision error decrease with risk aversion?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(1), pages 259-273, March.
    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 11 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.