Comparing Theories: What are we Looking For?
Two recent papers, Harless and Camerer(1994) and Hey and Orme(1994) were both addressed to the same question: which is the 'best' theory of decision making under risk? The two papers shared a common concern: the appropriate trade-off between the descriptive accuracy of a theory and the predictive parsimony of that theory. In other respects, however, the two papers differed markedly: first in their treatment of the stochastic specification underlying the data generating process; second, and more importantly, in their interpretation of the question posed. This current paper tackles these two issues; first, trying to resolve the issue of the correct stochastic specification; second, by clarifying what economists might mean by a `best' theory. The paper provides a general framework for answering such questions, and illustrates the application of this framework through two experiments aimed at answering the question: `which is the best theory of decision making under risk?'.
Authors: | Hey, John D. |
---|---|
Institutions: | Department of Economics and Related Studies, University of York |
Saved in:
freely available
Saved in favorites
Similar items by person
-
Assessing Multiple Prior Models of Behaviour under Ambiguity
Conte, Anna, (2012)
-
Does Sequentiality Impede Convergence?
Hey, John D., (2013)
-
Hey, John Denis, (1994)
- More ...