IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cwl/cwldpp/1526.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Randomized Sign Test for Dependent Observations on Discrete Choice under Risk

Author

Listed:

Abstract

This paper proposes nonparametric statistical procedures for analyzing discrete choice models of affective decision making. We make two contributions to the literature on behavioral economics. Namely, we propose a procedure for eliciting the existence of a Nash equilibrium in an intrapersonal, potential game as well as randomized sign tests for dependent observations on game-theoretic models of affective decision making. This methodology is illustrated in the context of a hypothetical experiment -- the Casino Game.

Suggested Citation

  • Anat Bracha & Jeremy Gray & Rustam Ibragimov & Boaz Nadler & Dmitry Shapiro & Glena Ames & Donald J. Brown, 2005. "Randomized Sign Test for Dependent Observations on Discrete Choice under Risk," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1526, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    • Handle: RePEc:cwl:cwldpp:1526
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cowles.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/pub/d15/d1526.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. Sharakhmetov, Sh. & Ibragimov, R., 2002. "A Characterization of Joint Distribution of Two-Valued Random Variables and Its Applications," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 389-408, November.
    3. Donald Brown & Rustam Ibragimov, 2005. "Sign Tests for Dependent Observations and Bounds for Path-Dependent Options," Yale School of Management Working Papers amz2581, Yale School of Management, revised 01 Jul 2005.
    4. Monderer, Dov & Shapley, Lloyd S., 1996. "Potential Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 124-143, May.
    5. Donald J. Brown & Rustam Ibragimov, 2005. "Sign Tests for Dependent Observations and Bounds for Path-Dependent Options," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1518, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    6. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Francesco GUALA, 2017. "Preferences: Neither Behavioural nor Mental," Departmental Working Papers 2017-05, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    2. Bocqueho, Geraldine & Jacquet, Florence & Reynaud, Arnaud, 2011. "Expected Utility or Prospect Theory Maximizers? Results from a Structural Model based on Field-experiment Data," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114257, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Luís Santos-Pinto & Adrian Bruhin & José Mata & Thomas Åstebro, 2015. "Detecting heterogeneous risk attitudes with mixed gambles," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(4), pages 573-600, December.
    4. Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten Igel & Rutström, Elisabet E., 2014. "Dual criteria decisions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 101-113.
      • Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten Igel & Rutström, Elisabet, 2009. "Dual Criteria Decisions," Working Papers 02-2009, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Economics.
    5. Enrico Diecidue & Peter Wakker & Marcel Zeelenberg, 2007. "Eliciting decision weights by adapting de Finetti’s betting-odds method to prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 179-199, June.
    6. Chiu, W. Henry, 2019. "Comparative statics in an ordinal theory of choice under risk," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 113-123.
    7. Riddel, Mary C. & Shaw, W. Douglass, 2006. "A Theoretically-Consistent Empirical Non-Expected Utility Model of Ambiguity: Nuclear Waste Mortality Risk and Yucca Mountain," Pre-Prints 23964, Texas A&M University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    8. Lehmann, Erik E. & Warning, Susanne, 2003. "The impact of gender on individual decisions: Evidence from the "Millionaire Show"," Discussion Papers, Series I 325, University of Konstanz, Department of Economics.
    9. Vjollca Sadiraj, 2014. "Probabilistic risk attitudes and local risk aversion: a paradox," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(4), pages 443-454, December.
    10. Bernard, Carole & Chen, Jit Seng & Vanduffel, Steven, 2015. "Rationalizing investors’ choices," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 10-23.
    11. Ravi Kanbur & Jukka Pirttilä & Matti Tuomala, 2008. "Moral Hazard, Income Taxation and Prospect Theory," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 110(2), pages 321-337, June.
    12. Abdellaoui, Mohammed & Bleichrodt, Han, 2007. "Eliciting Gul's theory of disappointment aversion by the tradeoff method," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 631-645, December.
    13. Caspar G. Chorus & Benedict G. C. Dellaert, 2012. "Travel Choice Inertia: The Joint Role of Risk Aversion and Learning," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 46(1), pages 139-155, January.
    14. Latifa Ghalayini & Dana Deeb, 2021. "Utility Measurement in Integrative Negotiation," Information Management and Business Review, AMH International, vol. 13(1), pages 1-15.
    15. Ben Salk, Sana & Blondel, Serge & Daniel, Christophe & Deffains-Crapsky, Catherine & Jutard, Catherine & Sejourne, Bruno, 2007. "Management of climate risks in the wine sector: a field study on risky behaviour," 101st Seminar, July 5-6, 2007, Berlin Germany 9251, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. 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, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2019.
    17. Ehsan Taheri & Chen Wang, 2018. "Eliciting Public Risk Preferences in Emergency Situations," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 223-241, December.
    18. Gijs Kuilen & Peter Wakker, 2006. "Learning in the Allais paradox," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 155-164, December.
    19. Bouchouicha, Ranoua & Martinsson, Peter & Medhin, Haileselassie & Vieider, Ferdinand M., 2017. "Stake effects on ambiguity attitudes for gains and losses," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 83(1), pages 19-35.
    20. Stephen G Dimmock & Roy Kouwenberg & Olivia S Mitchell & Kim Peijnenburg, 2021. "Household Portfolio Underdiversification and Probability Weighting: Evidence from the Field," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 34(9), pages 4524-4563.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Behavioral economics; Affective decision making; Intrapersonal potential games; Randomized sign tests; Dependent observations; Adapted sequences; Martingale-difference sequences;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C12 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Hypothesis Testing: General
    • C32 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Time-Series Models; Dynamic Quantile Regressions; Dynamic Treatment Effect Models; Diffusion Processes; State Space Models
    • C35 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions
    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D11 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Theory
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cwl:cwldpp:1526. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Brittany Ladd (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cowleus.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.