Stochastic models for binary discrete choice under risk: A critical primer and econometric comparison

Research in Experimental Economics

Volumn 12, Issue , 2008, Pages 197-292

  Wilcox, Nathaniel T ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 54249105825     PISSN: 01932306     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1016/S0193-2306(08)00004-5     Document Type: Review

References (89)

1. Aitchison, J. (1963). Inverse distributions and independent gamma-distributed products of random variables. Biomeirika, 50, 505-508.
2. Andersen, S., Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutström, E. E. (2008). Eliciting risk and time preferences. Econometrica, 76 (forthcoming).
3. Ballinger, T. P., & Wilcox, N. T. (1997). Decisions, error and heterogeneity. Economic Journal, 107, 1090-1105.
4. Becker, G. M., DeGroot, M. H., & Marschak, J. (1963a). Stochastic models of choice behavior. Behavioral Science, 8, 41-55.
5. Becker, G. M., DeGroot, M. H., & Marschak, J. (1963b). An experimental study of some stochastic models for wagers. Behavioral Science, 8, 199-202.
6. Birnbaum, M. H., & Navarrete, J. B. (1998). Testing descriptive utility theories: Violations of stochastic dominance and cumulative independence. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 17, 49-78.
7. Black, D. (1948). On the rationale of group decision making. Journal of Political Economy, 56, 23-34.
8. Blavatskyy, P. R. (2006). Violations of betweenness or random errors? Economics Letters, 91, 34-38.
9. Blavatskyy, P. R. (2007). Stochastic choice under risk. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 34, 259-286.
10. Block, H. D., & Marschak, J. (1960). Random orderings and stochastic theories of responses. In: I. Olkin, S. G. Ghurye, W. Hoeffding, W. G. Madow & H. B. Mann (Eds), Contributions to probability and statistics: Essays in honor of Harold Hotelling (pp. 97-132). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
11. Buschena, D. E., & Zilberman, D. (2000). Generalized expected utility, heteroscedastic error, and path dependence in risky choice. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 20, 67-88.
12. Busemeyer, J. R., & Townsend, J. T. (1993). Decision field theory: A dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. Psychological Review, 100, 432-459.
13. Busemeyer, J. R., & Wang, Y.-M. (2000). Model comparisons and model selections based on generalization criterion methodology. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 44, 171-189.
14. Camerer, C. (1989). An experimental test of several generalized expected utility theories. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2, 61-104.
15. Camerer, C., & Ho, T.-H. (1999). Experience weighted attraction learning in normal-form games. Econometrica, 67, 827-874.
16. Camerer, C., & Hogarth, R. (1999). The effects of financial incentives in experiments: A review and capital-labor-production framework. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19, 7-42.
17. Carbone, E. (1997). Investigation of stochastic preference theory using experimental data. Economics Letters, 57, 305-311.
18. Carroll, J. D. (1980). Models and methods for multidimensional analysis of preferential choice (or other dominance) data. In: E. D. Lantermann & H. Feger (Eds), Similarity and choice (pp. 234-289). Bern, Switzerland: Huber.
19. Carroll, J. D., & De Soete, G. (1991). Toward a new paradigm for the study of multiattribute choice behavior. American Psychologist, 46, 342-351.
20. Chew, S. H. (1983). A generalization of the quasilinear mean with applications to the measurement of income inequality and decision theory resolving the Allais paradox. Econometrica, 51, 1065-1092.
21. Chew, S. H., Karni, E., & Safra, Z. (1987). Risk aversion in the theory of expected utility with rank-dependent preferences. Journal of Economic Theory, 42, 370-381.
22. Chipman, J. (1963). Stochastic choice and subjective probability. In: D. Willner (Ed.), Decisions, values and groups (pp. 70-95). New York: Pergamon.
23. Conlisk, J. (1989). Three variants on the Allais example. The American Economic Review, 79, 392-407.
24. Conte, A., Hey, J., & Moffatt, P. (2007). Mixture models of choice under risk. University of York, Discussion Paper in Economics 2007/6.
25. Cox, J., & Sadiraj, V. (2006). Small- and large-stakes risk aversion: Implications of concavity calibration for decision theory. Games and Economic Behavior, 56, 45-60.
26. Cummings, R. G., Harrison, G. W., & Rutström, E. E. (1995). Homegrown values and hypothetical surveys: Is the dichotomous choice approach incentive-compatible? American Economic Review, 85, 260-266.
27. Debreu, G. (1958). Stochastic choice and cardinal utility. Econometrica, 26, 440-444.
28. Debreu, G. (1960). Review of R. D. Luce - Individual choice behavior: A theoretical analysis. American Economic Review, 50, 186-188.
29. Domencich, T., & McFadden, D. (1975). Urban travel demand: A behavioral analysis. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
30. Edwards, W. (1954). A theory of decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 380-417.
31. Fechner, G. (1966/1860). Elements of psychophysics (Vol. 1). New York: Holt, Rinchart and Winston.
32. Fishburn, P. (1999). Stochastic utility. In: S. Barbara, P. Hammond & C. Seidl (Eds), Handbook of utility theory (Vol. 1, pp. 273-320). Berlin: Springer.
33. Grether, D., & Plott, C. (1979). Economic theory of choice and the preference reversal phenomenon. American Economic Review, 69, 623-638.
34. Gul, F., & Pesendorfer, W. (2006). Random expected utility. Econometrica, 74, 121-146.
35. Halff, H. M. (1976). Choice theories for differentially comparable alternatives. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 14, 244-246.
36. Harless, D., & Camerer, C. (1994). The predictive utility of generalized expected utility theories. Econometrica, 62, 1251-1289.
37. Harrison, G. W., Johnson, E., McInnes, M., & Rutström, E. E. (2005). Risk aversion and incentive effects: Comment. American Economic Review, 95, 897-901.
38. Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutström, E. E. (2007). Risk attitudes, randomization to treatment, and self-selection into experiments. Working Paper no. 05-01. Department of Economics, College of Business Administration, University of Central Florida.
39. Harrison, G. W., & Rutström, E. E. (2005). Expected utility theory and prospect theory: One wedding and a decent funeral. Working Paper no. 05-18. Department of Economics, College of Business Administration, University of Central Florida.
40. Harrison, G. W., & Rutström, E. E. (2008). Risk aversion in the laboratory. In: J. C. Cox & G. W. Harrison (Eds), Research in experimental economics 12: Risk aversion in experiments (Vol. 12, pp. 41-196). Bingley, UK: Emerald (forthcoming).
41. Hey, J. D. (1995). Experimental Investigations of errors in decision making under risk. European Economic Review, 39, 633-640.
42. Hey, J. D. (2001). Does repetition improve consistency? Experimental Economics, 4, 5-54.
43. Hey, J. D. (2005). Why we should not be silent about noise. Experimental Economics, 8, 325-345.
44. Hey, J. D., & Carbone, E. (1995). Stochastic choice with deterministic preferences: An experimental investigation. Economics Letters, 47, 161-167.
45. Hey, J. D., & Orme, C. (1994). Investigating generalizations of expected utility theory using experimental data. Econometrica, 62, 1291-1329.
46. Hilton, R. W. (1989). Risk attitude under random utility. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 33, 206-222.
47. Holt, C. A., & Laury, S. K. (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. American Economic Review, 92, 1644-1655.
48. Huber, J., Payne, J. W., & Puto, C. (1982). Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: Violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 90-98.
49. Hutchinson, T. P., & Lai, C. D. (1990). Continuous bivariate distributions, emphasizing applications. Adelaide, Australia: Rumsby Scientific Publishers.
50. Judd, K. L. (1998). Numerical methods in economics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
51. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291.
52. Leland, J. (1994). Generalized similarity judgments: An alternative explanation for choice anomalies. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 9, 151-172.
53. Loonies, G. (2005). Modeling the stochastic component of behaviour in experiments: Some issues for the interpretation of data. Experimental Economics, 8, 301-323.
54. Loomes, G., Moffatt, P., & Sugden, R. (2002). A microeconometric test of alternative stochastic theories of risky choice. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 24, 103-130.
55. Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1995). Incorporating a stochastic element into decision theories. European Economic Review, 39, 641-648.
56. Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1998). Testing different stochastic specifications of risky choice. Economica, 65, 581-598.
57. Luce, R. D. (1959). Individual choice behavior: A theoretical analysis. New York: Wiley.
58. Luce, R. D. (1977). The choice axiom after twenty years. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15, 215-233.
59. Luce, R. D., & Suppes, P. (1965). Preference, utility and subjective probability. In: R. D. Luce, R. R. Bush & E. Galanter (Eds), Handbook of mathematical psychology (Vol. III, pp. 249-410). Wiley: New York.
60. Machina, M. (1985). Stochastic choice functions generated from deterministic preferences over lotteries. Economic Journal, 95, 575-594.
61. McKay, A. T. (1934). Sampling from batches. Supplement to the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, I, 207-216.
62. McKelvey, R., & Palfrey, T. (1995). Quantal response equilibria for normal form games. Games and Economic Behavior, 10, 6-38.
63. Moffatt, P. (2005). Stochastic choice and the allocation of cognitive effort. Experimental Economics, 8, 369-388.
64. Moffatt, P., & Peters, S. (2001). Testing for the presence of a tremble in economics experiments. Experimental Economics, 4, 221-228.
65. Morrison, H. W. (1963). Testable conditions for triads of paired comparison choices. Psychometrika, 28, 369-390.
66. Mosteller, F., & Nogee, P. (1951). An experimental measurement of utility. Journal of Political Economy, 59, 371-404.
67. Myers, J. L., & Sadler, E. (1960). Effects of range of payoffs as a variable in risk taking. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 306-309.
68. Papke, L. E., & Wooldridge, J. M. (1996). Econometric methods for fractional response variables with an application to 401(K.) plan participation rates. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 11, 619-632.
69. Pratt, J. W. (1964). Risk aversion in the small and in the large. Econometrica, 32, 122-136.
70. Prelec, D. (1998). The probability weighting function. Econometrica, 66, 497-527.
71. Quiggin, J. (1982). A theory of anticipated utility. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3, 323-343.
72. Quiggin, J. (1991). Comparative statics for rank-dependent expected utility theory. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 4, 339-350.
73. Rabin, M. (2000). Risk aversion and expected-utility theory: A calibration theorem. Econometrica, 68, 1281-1292.
74. Rothschild, M., & Stiglitz, J. E. (1970). Increasing risk I: A definition. Journal of Economic Theory, 2, 225-243.
75. Rubinstein, A. (1988). Similarity and decision making under risk (Is there a utility theory resolution to the allais paradox?). Journal of Economic Theory, 46, 145-153.
76. Sonsino, D., Benzion, U., & Mador, G. (2002). The complexity effects on choice with uncertainty: Experimental evidence. Economic Journal, 112, 936-965.
77. Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (1989). Probability and juxtaposition effects: An experimental investigation of the common ratio effect. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2, 159-178.
78. Thurstone, L. L. (1927). A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 76, 31-48.
79. Train, K. (2003). Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
80. Tversky, A. (1969). Intransitivity of preferences. Psychological Review, 76, 31-48.
81. Tversky, A. (1972). Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review, 79, 281-299.
82. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. Journal of Business, 59, S251-S278.
83. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297-323.
84. Tversky, A., & Russo, J. E. (1969). Substitutability and similarity in binary choices. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 6, 1-12.
85. Vuong, Q. (1989). Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-nested hypotheses. Econometrica, 57, 307-333.
86. Wilcox, N. T. (1993). Lottery choice: Incentives, complexity and decision time. Economic Journal, 103, 1397-1417.
87. Wilcox, N. T. (2007a). Stochastically more risk averse: A contextual theory of stochastic discrete choice under risk. Journal of Econometrics (forthcoming).
88. Wilcox, N. T. (2007b). Predicting risky choices out-of-context: A Monte Carlo Study. Working Paper. Department of Economics, University of Houston.
89. Wooldridge, J. M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.