Journal of Risk and Uncertainty

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 103–130 | Cite as

A Microeconometric Test of Alternative Stochastic Theories of Risky Choice

Abstract

The random preference, Fechner (or ‘white noise’), and constant error (or ‘tremble’) models of stochastic choice under risk are compared. Various combinations of these approaches are used with expected utility and rank-dependent theory. The resulting models are estimated in a random effects framework using experimental data from two samples of 46 subjects who each faced 90 pairwise choice problems. The best fitting model uses the random preference approach with a tremble mechanism, in conjunction with rank-dependent theory. As subjects gain experience, trembles become less frequent and there is less deviation from behaviour consistent with expected utility theory.

risk stochastic choice error expected utility theory rank dependent theory 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Avery, Robert B., Lars Peter Hansen, and V. Joseph Hatz. (1983). “Multiperiod Probit Models and Orthogonality Condition Estimation,” International Economic Review 24, 21-35.Google Scholar
  2. Ballinger, T. Parker and Nathaniel Wilcox. (1997). “Decisions, Error and Heterogeneity,” Economic Journal 107, 1090-1105.Google Scholar
  3. Becker, Gordon, Morris DeGroot, and Jacob Marschak. (1963). “Stochastic Models of Choice Behavior,” Behavioral Science 8, 41-55.Google Scholar
  4. Berndt, Ernst et al. (1974). “Estimation and Inference in Nonlinear Structural Models,” Annals of Economic and Social Measurement 3, 653-666.Google Scholar
  5. Camerer, Colin. (1989). “An Experimental Test of Several Generalized Expected Utility Theories,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2, 61-104.Google Scholar
  6. Carbone Enrica. (1998). “Investigation of Stochastic Preference Theory Using Experimental Data,” Economics Letters 57, 305-312.Google Scholar
  7. Carbone, Enrica and John Hey. (1994). “Estimation of Expected Utility and Non-Expected Utility Preference Functionals Using Complete Ranking Data.” In Bertrand Munier and Mark Machina (eds.), Models and Experiments on Risk and Rationality. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  8. Fechner, Gustav. (1860/ 1966). Elements of Psychophysics, Vol. 1. NewY ork: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  9. Harless, David and Colin Camerer. (1994). “The Predictive Utility of Generalized Expected Utility Theories,” Econometrica 62, 1251-1289.Google Scholar
  10. Hey, John and Chris Orme. (1994). “Investigating Generalizations of Expected Utility Theory Using Experimental Data,” Econometrica 62, 1291-1326.Google Scholar
  11. Loomes, Graham and Robert Sugden. (1995). “Incorporating a Stochastic Element Into Decision Theories,” European Economic Review 39, 641-648.Google Scholar
  12. Loomes, Graham and Robert Sugden. (1998). “Testing Alternative Stochastic Specifications for Risky Choice,” Economica 65, 581-598.Google Scholar
  13. Moffatt, Peter and Simon Peters. (2001). “Testing for the Presence of a Tremble in Economics Experiments,” Experimental Economics 4, 221-228.Google Scholar
  14. Prelec, Drazen. (1998). “The Probability Weighting Function,” Econometrica 66, 497-527.Google Scholar
  15. Quiggin, John. (1982). “A Theory of Anticipated Utility,”Journal of Economic Behavior and Organisation 3, 323-343.Google Scholar
  16. Starmer, Chris and Robert Sugden. (1989). “Violations of the Independence Axiom in Common Ratio Problems: An Experimental Test of Some Competing Hypotheses,” Annals of Operations Research 19, 79-102.Google Scholar
  17. Tversky, Amos and Daniel Kahneman. (1992). “Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5, 297-323.Google Scholar
  18. Viscusi, W. Kip. (1989). “Prospective Reference Theory: Toward an Explanation of the Paradoxes,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2, 235-264.Google Scholar
  19. Vuong, Quang (1989). “Likelihood Ratio Tests for Model Selection and Non-Nested Hypotheses,” Econometrica 57, 307-333.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Graham Loomes
    • 1
  • Peter G. Moffatt
    • 1
  • Robert Sugden
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Economic and Social StudiesUniversity ofEast AngliaUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations