IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/yor/yorken/17-05.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Does the Stochastic Specification Matter?

Author

Listed:
  • Konstantina Mari

Abstract

This paper highlights the importance and significance of the stochastic assumptions underlying any empirical analysis. The stochastic assumptions in any data analysis are usually implicit, rather than explicitly, stated. For example, in a binomial option pricing model, we assume that we have a binary random variable. In this paper we examine the significance of the stochastic assumptions by looking at the statistical properties of stated allocations (in an allocation problem) and their relation to the optimal allocation. The message that emerges is an important one: that the stochastic specification underlying any statistical analysis matters for the interpretation of its results. Our results suggest that before doing any statistical analysis one should carry out extensive simulations.

Suggested Citation

  • Konstantina Mari, 2017. "Does the Stochastic Specification Matter?," Discussion Papers 17/05, Department of Economics, University of York.
    • Handle: RePEc:yor:yorken:17/05
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.york.ac.uk/media/economics/documents/discussionpapers/2017/1705.pdf
    File Function: Main text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    2. Loomes, Graham, 1991. "Evidence of a New Violation of the Independence Axiom," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 91-108, January.
    3. 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..
    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. Enrica Carbone & Xueqi Dong & John Hey, 2017. "Elicitation of preferences under ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 87-102, April.
    2. Syngjoo Choi & Raymond Fisman & Douglas Gale & Shachar Kariv, 2007. "Consistency, Heterogeneity, and Granularity of Individual Behavior under Uncertainty," Economics Working Papers 0076, Institute for Advanced Study, School of Social Science.
    3. Enrica Carbone & Xueqi Dong & John Hey, 2015. "Portfolio Choice Under Ambiguity," Discussion Papers 15/03, Department of Economics, University of York.
    4. Wenting Zhou & John Hey, 2018. "Context matters," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(4), pages 723-756, December.
    5. 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.
    6. Galliera, Arianna, 2018. "Self-selecting random or cumulative pay? A bargaining experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 106-120.
    7. Kerri Brick & Martine Visser & Justine Burns, 2012. "Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence from South African Fishing Communities," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(1), pages 133-152.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Chetan Dave & Catherine Eckel & Cathleen Johnson & Christian Rojas, 2010. "Eliciting risk preferences: When is simple better?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 219-243, December.
    11. Veld, Chris & Veld-Merkoulova, Yulia V., 2008. "The risk perceptions of individual investors," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 226-252, April.
    12. Fidanoski, Filip & Johnson, Timothy, 2023. "A z-Tree implementation of the Dynamic Experiments for Estimating Preferences [DEEP] method," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 38(C).
    13. Stein T. Holden & Mesfin Tilahun, 2024. "Can Climate Shocks Make Vulnerable Subjects More Willing to Take Risks?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 87(4), pages 967-1007, April.
    14. Louis Lévy-Garboua & Hela Maafi & David Masclet & Antoine Terracol, 2012. "Risk aversion and framing effects," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(1), pages 128-144, March.
    15. Page, Lionel & Savage, David A. & Torgler, Benno, 2014. "Variation in risk seeking behaviour following large losses: A natural experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 121-131.
    16. Holzmeister, Felix, 2017. "oTree: Ready-made apps for risk preference elicitation methods," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 33-38.
    17. Königsheim, C. & Lukas, M. & Nöth, M., 2018. "Individual preferences and the exponential growth bias," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 352-369.
    18. Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten Igel & Rutström, Elisabet E., 2010. "Behavioral econometrics for psychologists," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 553-576, August.
    19. Claire Mouminoux & Jean-Louis Rullière & Stéphane Loisel, 2018. "Obfuscation and Honesty Experimental Evidence on Insurance Demand with Multiple Distribution Channels," Working Papers hal-01819522, HAL.
    20. de Castro, Luciano & Galvao, Antonio F. & Noussair, Charles N. & Qiao, Liang, 2022. "Do people maximize quantiles?," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 22-40.

    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:yor:yorken:17/05. 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: Paul Hodgson (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deyoruk.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.