Which Error Story Is Best?

Enrica Carbone () and John Hey

Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2000, vol. 20, issue 2, 76 pages

Abstract: Two recent papers, Harless and Camerer (1994) and Hey and Orme (1994) are both addressed to the same question: which is the "best" theory of decision making under risk? As an essential part of their separate approaches to an answer to this question, both sets of authors had to make an assumption about the underlying stochastic nature of their data. In this context this implied an assumption about the "errors" made by the subjects in the experiments generating the data under analysis. The two different sets of authors adopted different assumptions: the purpose of this current paper is to compare and contrast these two different error stories--in an attempt to discover which of the two is "best." Copyright 2000 by Kluwer Academic Publishers

Date: 2000
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (41)

Downloads: (external link)
http://journals.kluweronline.com/issn/0895-5646/contents link to full text (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
Chapter: Which Error Story is Best? (2018)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:kap:jrisku:v:20:y:2000:i:2:p:161-76

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer. ... ry/journal/11166/PS2

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Risk and Uncertainty is currently edited by W. Kip Viscusi

More articles in Journal of Risk and Uncertainty from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().