Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-7mr9c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-18T17:39:54.935Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modelling the Stochastic Component of Behaviour in Experiments: Some Issues for the Interpretation of Data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Graham Loomes
Graham Loomes*
Affiliation:
University of East Anglia
*
email: g.loomes@uea.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper considers some of the questions raised by the fact that people's behaviour—including their behaviour in experimental environments—has a stochastic component. The nature of this component may be crucial to the interpretation of the patterns of data we observe and the choice of statistical criteria for favouring one hypothesis at the expense of others. However, it is arguable that insufficient consideration has been given to the way(s) in which the stochastic element is modelled. The paper aims to explore some of the issues involved.

Keywords

stochastic choicedecision errorimprecisionanomalies

JEL classification

C12: Hypothesis Testing: General C91: Laboratory, Individual Behavior C73: Stochastic and Dynamic Games • Evolutionary Games • Repeated Games
Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 8 , Issue 4: Exploring the Error in Experimental Economics , December 2005 , pp. 301 - 323
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 Economic Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ballinger, T. and Wilcox, N. (1997). “Decisions, Error and Heterogeneity.” Economic Journal. 107, 10901105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateman, I., Day, B., Loomes, G., and Sugden, R. (2005). Ranking vs Choice in the Elicitation of Preferences, mimeo.Google Scholar
Becker, G., DeGroot, M., and Marschak, J. (1963). “Stochastic Models of Choice Behavior.” Behavioral Science. 8, 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buschena, D. and Zilberman, D. (2000). “Generalized Expected Utility, Heteroscedastic Error, and Path Dependence in Risky Choice.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 20, 67–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, D. and Loomes, G. (2004). Imprecision as an Account of the Preference Reversal Phenomenon, mimeo.Google Scholar
Camerer, C. (1989). “An Experimental Test of Several Generalized Utility Theories.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 2, 61–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fechner, G. (1860/1966). Elements of Psychophysics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Goeree, J. and Holt, C. (2001). “Ten Little Treasures of Game Theory and Ten Intuitive Contradictions.” American Economic Review. 91, 1402–1422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goeree, J., Holt, C. and Palfrey, T. (2003). “Risk Averse Behavior in Generalized Matching Pennies Games.” Games and Economic Behavior. 45, 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goeree, J., Holt, C. and Palfrey, T. (2005). “Regular Quantal Response Equilibrium.” Experimental Economics. 8, 347–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harless, D. and Camerer, C. (1994). “The Predictive Utility of Generalized Expected Utility Theories.” Econometrica. 62, 1251–1289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hey, J. and Orme, C. (1994). “Investigating Generalizations of Expected Utility Theory Using Experimental Data.” Econometrica. 62, 1291–1326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loomes, G. Moffatt, P., and Sugden, R. (2002). “A Microeconometric Test of Alternative Stochastic Theories of Risky Choice.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 24, 103–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loomes, G. and Sugden, R. (1995). “Incorporating a Stochastic Element into Decision Theories.” European Economic Review. 39, 641–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loomes, G. and Sugden, R. (1998). “Testing Different Stochastic Specifications of Risky Choice.” Economica. 65, 581–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loomes, G., Starmer, C. and Sugden, R. (1991). “Observing Violations of Transitivity by Experimental Methods.” Econometrica. 59, 425–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loomes, G. and Taylor, C. (1992). “Nontransitive Preferences over Gains and Losses.” Economic Journal. 102, 357–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacCrimmon, K. and Smith, M. (1986). “Imprecise Equivalences: Preference Reversals in Money and Probability.” University of British Columbia working paper #1211.Google Scholar
Machina, M. (1985). “Stochastic Choice Functions Generated from Deterministic Preferences over Lotteries.” Economic Journal. 95, 575–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKelvey, R. and Palfrey, T. (1995). “Quantal Response Equilibria for Normal Form Games.” Games and Economic Behavior. 10, 6–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKelvey, R. and Palfrey, T. (1998). “Quantal Response Equilibria for Extensive Form Games.” Experimental Economics. 1, 9–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ochs, J. (1995). “Games With Unique Mixed Strategy Equilibria: An Experimental Study.” Games and Economic Behavior. 10, 202–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quiggin, J. (1982). “A Theory of Anticipated Utility.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 3, 323343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seidl, C. (2002). “Preference Reversal.” Journal of Economic Surveys. 6, 621–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sopher, B. and Gigliotti, G. (1993). “Intransitive Cycles: Rational Choice or Random Error? An Answer Based on Estimation of Error Rates with Experimental Data.” Theory and Decision. 35, 311–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sopher, B. and Narramore, J. (2000). “Stochastic Choice and Consistency in Decision Making under Risk: An Experimental Study.” Theory and Decision. 48, 323–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starmer, C. and Sugden, R. (1989). “Violations of the Independence Axiom in Common Ratio Problems: An Experimental Test of Some Competing Hypotheses.” Annals of Operations Research. 19, 79–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1986). “Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions.” Journal of Business. 59, S251–S278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1992). “Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 5, 297–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A., Slovic, P., and Kahneman, D. (1990). “The Causes of Preference Reversal.” American Economic Review. 80, 204–217.Google Scholar