IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jrisku/v45y2012i3p191-213.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing the ‘standard’ model of stochastic choice under risk

Author

Listed:
  • David Butler
  • Andrea Isoni
  • Graham Loomes

Abstract

Models of stochastic choice are intended to capture the substantial amount of noise observed in decisions under risk. We present an experimental test of one model, which many regard as the default—the Basic Fechner model. We consider one of the model’s key assumptions—that the noise around the subjective value of a risky option is independent of other features of the decision problem. We find that this assumption is systematically violated. However the main patterns in our data can be accommodated by a more recent variant of the Fechner model, or within the random preference framework. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Suggested Citation

  • David Butler & Andrea Isoni & Graham Loomes, 2012. "Testing the ‘standard’ model of stochastic choice under risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 191-213, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jrisku:v:45:y:2012:i:3:p:191-213
    DOI: 10.1007/s11166-012-9154-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11166-012-9154-4
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11166-012-9154-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Loomes, Graham & Moffatt, Peter G & Sugden, Robert, 2002. "A Microeconometric Test of Alternative Stochastic Theories of Risky Choice," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 103-130, March.
    2. repec:bla:jecsur:v:16:y:2002:i:5:p:621-55 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. repec:bla:econom:v:65:y:1998:i:260:p:581-98 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. repec:feb:framed:0074 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2009. "Preference reversals and probabilistic decisions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 237-250, December.
    6. Pavlo R. Blavatskyy, 2011. "A Model of Probabilistic Choice Satisfying First-Order Stochastic Dominance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(3), pages 542-548, March.
    7. Adrian Bruhin & Helga Fehr-Duda & Thomas Epper, 2010. "Risk and Rationality: Uncovering Heterogeneity in Probability Distortion," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 78(4), pages 1375-1412, July.
    8. Hans-Martin von Gaudecker & Arthur van Soest & Erik Wengstrom, 2011. "Heterogeneity in Risky Choice Behavior in a Broad Population," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 664-694, April.
    9. Hans-Martin von Gaudecker & Arthur van Soest & Erik Wengstrom, 2011. "Heterogeneity in Risky Choice Behavior in a Broad Population," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 664-694, April.
    10. John D. Hey & Chris Orme, 2018. "Investigating Generalizations Of Expected Utility Theory Using Experimental Data," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 3, pages 63-98, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    11. 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.
    12. Graham Loomes, 2005. "Modelling the Stochastic Component of Behaviour in Experiments: Some Issues for the Interpretation of Data," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 8(4), pages 301-323, December.
    13. David Butler & Andrea Isoni & Graham Loomes & Kei Tsutsui, 2014. "Beyond choice: investigating the sensitivity and validity of measures of strength of preference," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 17(4), pages 537-563, December.
    14. John D. Hey & Gianna Lotito & Anna Maffioletti, 2018. "The descriptive and predictive adequacy of theories of decision making under uncertainty/ambiguity," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 8, pages 189-219, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    15. 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.
    16. Blavatskyy, Pavlo R., 2006. "Violations of betweenness or random errors?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 34-38, April.
    17. Glenn W Harrison & John A List & Charles Towe, 2007. "Naturally Occurring Preferences and Exogenous Laboratory Experiments: A Case Study of Risk Aversion," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 75(2), pages 433-458, March.
    18. Thomas Epper & Helga Fehr-Duda & Adrian Bruhin, 2011. "Viewing the future through a warped lens: Why uncertainty generates hyperbolic discounting," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 169-203, December.
    19. Harless, David W & Camerer, Colin F, 1994. "The Predictive Utility of Generalized Expected Utility Theories," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(6), pages 1251-1289, November.
    20. 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.
    21. Frederick Mosteller & Philip Nogee, 1951. "An Experimental Measurement of Utility," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(5), pages 371-371.
    22. David J. Butler & Graham C. Loomes, 2007. "Imprecision as an Account of the Preference Reversal Phenomenon," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(1), pages 277-297, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Mäs, Michael & Nax, Heinrich H., 2016. "A behavioral study of “noise” in coordination games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 195-208.
    2. Mäs, Michael & Nax, Heinrich H., 2016. "A behavioral study of “noise” in coordination games," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 65422, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Michael H. Birnbaum & Lucy Wan, 2020. "MARTER: Markov True and Error model of drifting parameters," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(1), pages 47-73, January.
    4. Graham Loomes & Ganna Pogrebna, 2014. "Testing for independence while allowing for probabilistic choice," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 189-211, December.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:1:p:47-73 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. David Butler & Andrea Isoni & Graham Loomes & Kei Tsutsui, 2014. "Beyond choice: investigating the sensitivity and validity of measures of strength of preference," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 17(4), pages 537-563, December.
    7. 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.

    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. Daniel Navarro-Martinez & Graham Loomes & Andrea Isoni & David Butler & Larbi Alaoui, 2018. "Boundedly rational expected utility theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 57(3), pages 199-223, December.
    2. Michael H. Birnbaum & Ulrich Schmidt & Miriam D. Schneider, 2017. "Testing independence conditions in the presence of errors and splitting effects," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 54(1), pages 61-85, February.
    3. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2014. "Stronger utility," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 76(2), pages 265-286, February.
    4. Aurora García-Gallego & Nikolaos Georgantzís & Daniel Navarro-Martínez & Gerardo Sabater-Grande, 2011. "The stochastic component in choice and regression to the mean," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(2), pages 251-267, August.
    5. Liu Shi & Jianying Qiu & Jiangyan Li & Frank Bohn, 2024. "Consciously stochastic in preference reversals," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 68(3), pages 255-297, June.
    6. Ola Andersson & Håkan J. Holm & Jean-Robert Tyran & Erik Wengström, 2020. "Robust inference in risk elicitation tasks," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 61(3), pages 195-209, December.
    7. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2021. "Probabilistic independence axiom," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 46(1), pages 21-34, March.
    8. Pavlo R. Blavatskyy, 2020. "Dual choice axiom and probabilistic choice," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 61(1), pages 25-41, August.
    9. Andersson, Ola & Tyran, Jean-Robert & Wengström, Erik & Holm, Håkan J., 2013. "Risk Aversion Relates to Cognitive Ability: Fact or Fiction?," Working Paper Series 964, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    10. Hans-Martin Gaudecker & Arthur Soest & Erik Wengström, 2012. "Experts in experiments," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 159-190, October.
    11. Ferdinand Vieider, 2016. "Certainty Preference, Random Choice, and Loss Aversion: A Comment on "Violence and Risk Preference: Experimental Evidence from Afghanistan"," Economics Discussion Papers em-dp2016-06, Department of Economics, University of Reading.
    12. Galizzi, Matteo M. & Machado, Sara R. & Miniaci, Raffaele, 2016. "Temporal stability, cross-validity, and external validity of risk preferences measures: experimental evidence from a UK representative sample," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 67554, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. Blavatskyy, Pavlo, 2015. "Behavior in the centipede game: A decision-theoretical perspective," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 117-122.
    14. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel Angel Ballester, 2014. "Discrete Choice Estimation of Risk Aversion," Working Papers 788, Barcelona School of Economics.
    15. 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.
    16. Nathaniel T. Wilcox, 2015. "Error and Generalization in Discrete Choice Under Risk," Working Papers 15-11, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    17. Andreas C Drichoutis & Jayson L Lusk, 2014. "Judging Statistical Models of Individual Decision Making under Risk Using In- and Out-of-Sample Criteria," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(7), pages 1-13, July.
    18. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Johannes Buckenmaier & Michele Garagnani, 2020. "Stochastic choice and preference reversals," ECON - Working Papers 370, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Jul 2021.
    19. Arianna Galliera & E. Elisabet Rutström, 2021. "Crowded out: Heterogeneity in risk attitudes among poor households in the US," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 63(2), pages 103-132, October.
    20. Pavlo R. Blavatskyy, 2011. "A Model of Probabilistic Choice Satisfying First-Order Stochastic Dominance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(3), pages 542-548, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Choice under risk; Stochastic choice; Fechner model; Random preference; D81; C91;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior

    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:45:y:2012:i:3:p:191-213. 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: 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.