IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/yor/yorken/99-30.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Further Investigation of Selten's Measure of Predictive Success

Author

Listed:
  • John Hey

Abstract

There are two basic ways of assessing the goodness of fit of theories to data - one based on stochastic theory (for example, the maximised likelihood in some form) and one based on deterministic theory, for example, Selten's Measure of Predictive Success. This paper explores the second of these and presents an application of Selten's Measure to the problem of comparing and ranking various theories of decision making under risk. The paper uses an experiment which was specifically designed to provide insight into the usefulness of this measure. Specifically the questions in the experiment were chosen to give a high degree of discrimination between the various theories being ranked by Selten's measure. However, in common with a previous application, it is found that the measure appears to fail because it has no mechanism for differentiating between observations inconsistent with the theories. This seems to be an inherent failing of a measure based on deterministic theory.

Suggested Citation

  • John Hey, "undated". "A Further Investigation of Selten's Measure of Predictive Success," Discussion Papers 99/30, Department of Economics, University of York.
    • Handle: RePEc:yor:yorken:99/30
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.york.ac.uk/media/economics/documents/discussionpapers/1999/9930.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Machina, Mark J, 1982. ""Expected Utility" Analysis without the Independence Axiom," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(2), pages 277-323, March.
    2. Hey, John D., 1998. "An application of Selten's measure of predictive success," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 1-15, January.
    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. Botond Kőszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2006. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(4), pages 1133-1165.
    2. V. Kerry Smith & William H. Desvousges, 1988. "Risk Perception, Learning, and Individual Behavior," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 70(5), pages 1113-1117.
    3. David J. Pannell, 1991. "Pests and pesticides, risk and risk aversion," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 5(4), pages 361-383, August.
    4. Chiu, W. Henry, 2019. "Comparative statics in an ordinal theory of choice under risk," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 113-123.
    5. Basieva, Irina & Khrennikova, Polina & Pothos, Emmanuel M. & Asano, Masanari & Khrennikov, Andrei, 2018. "Quantum-like model of subjective expected utility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 150-162.
    6. Segal, Uzi, 1987. "The Ellsberg Paradox and Risk Aversion: An Anticipated Utility Approach," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 28(1), pages 175-202, February.
    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. Rania HENTATI & Jean-Luc PRIGENT, 2010. "Structured Portfolio Analysis under SharpeOmega Ratio," EcoMod2010 259600073, EcoMod.
    9. White, Lucy, 2006. "Prudence in Bargaining: The Effect of Uncertainty on Bargaining Outcomes," CEPR Discussion Papers 5822, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    10. Kelsey, David & Yalcin, Erkan, 2007. "The arbitrage pricing theorem with incomplete preferences," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 90-105, July.
    11. Robert Bordley & Joseph Kadane, 1999. "Experiment-dependent priors in psychology and physics," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 213-227, December.
    12. John D. Hey, 2018. "Does Repetition Improve Consistency?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 2, pages 13-62, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    13. Andrea Morone & Ozlem Ozdemir, 2006. "Valuing Protection against Low Probability, High Loss Risks: Experimental Evidence," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2006-34, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    14. Arthur Charpentier & Alfred Galichon & Marc Henry, 2012. "Local Utility and Multivariate Risk Aversion," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-836, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.
    15. Alain Chateauneuf & Ghizlane Lakhnati & Eric Langlais, 2016. "On the precautionary motive for savings and prudence in the rank-dependent utility framework," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 61(1), pages 169-182, January.
    16. Skiadas, Costis, 1997. "Subjective Probability under Additive Aggregation of Conditional Preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 242-271, October.
    17. Shogren, Jason F., 1993. "Experimental Markets and Environmental Policy," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(2), pages 117-129, October.
    18. Zvi Safra & Uzi Segal, 2005. "Are Universal Preferences Possible? Calibration Results for Non-Expected Utility Theories," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 633, Boston College Department of Economics.
    19. Antoni Bosch-Domènech & Joaquim Silvestre, 2013. "Measuring risk aversion with lists: a new bias," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 75(4), pages 465-496, October.
    20. Safra, Zvi & Zilcha, Itzhak, 1986. "Firm's hedging behavior without the expected utility hypothesis," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 145-148.

    More about this item

    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:yor:yorken:99/30. 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.