Assessing Starmer's Evidence for New Theories of Choice: A Subjectivist's Comment

John Fountain

No 263711, Department of Economics Discussion Papers from University of Canterbury - New Zealand

Abstract: Inferences derived from Starmer's (1992) experimental evidence concerning Expected Utility (EUT), Fanning Out (FO), and Fanning In (Fl) theories are both incomplete and incorrect A subjectivist Bayesian approach based on calculating posterior probability distributions for experimental outcomes is used to quantify the degree of support for each theory and to make coherent inferences about the relative performance of FO and H theories in explaining violations of EUT.

Keywords: Research; Methods/Statistical; Methods (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Pages: 14
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/263711/files/canterbury-nz-059.pdf (application/pdf)
https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/263711/files/c ... 9.pdf?subformat=pdfa (application/pdf)

Related works:
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:ags:canzdp:263711

DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.263711

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Department of Economics Discussion Papers from University of Canterbury - New Zealand Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by AgEcon Search ().