IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jrisku/v18y1999i3p321-25.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reanalysis of the Chechile-Cooke Experiment: Correcting for Mismatched Gambles

Author

Listed:
  • Chechile, Richard A
  • Luce, R Duncan

Abstract

Chechile and Cooke (1997) experimentally tested a broad class of utility models subsumed under the Miyamoto (1988, 1992) generic utility theory. The Chechile and Cooke study required participants to match on each trial, a fully specified reference gamble to a partially specified comparison gamble by adjusting the probability of a win on the comparison gamble. The Chechile and Cooke experiment, however, contained a subset of trials which were intrinsically unmatchable. In such cases, the participants could only give an extreme probability (either 0 or 1). In this paper, those extreme trials were omitted and the results from the experiment reanalyzed. Despite the mismatch problem, the conclusions of the Chechile and Cooke experiment were again supported. For nine implementations of generic utility there is model failure due to the systematic variation of a parameter that should be a constant. Copyright 1999 by Kluwer Academic Publishers

Suggested Citation

  • Chechile, Richard A & Luce, R Duncan, 1999. "Reanalysis of the Chechile-Cooke Experiment: Correcting for Mismatched Gambles," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 321-325, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jrisku:v:18:y:1999:i:3:p:321-25
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://journals.kluweronline.com/issn/0895-5646/contents
    File Function: link to full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Levy, Haim & Levy, Moshe, 2002. "Experimental test of the prospect theory value function: A stochastic dominance approach," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 1058-1081, November.
    2. Stefan Traub & Christian Seidl & Ulrich Schmidt & Peter Grösche, 1999. "Knock-out for descriptive utility or experimental-design error?," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 70(2), pages 109-126, June.
    3. Sneddon, Robert & Luce, R. Duncan, 2001. "Empirical Comparisons of Bilinear and Nonbilinear Utility Theories," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 71-94, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jrisku:v:18:y:1999:i:3:p:321-25. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.