Conditional Independence in a Binary Choice Experiment

Experimental and behavioral economists, as well as psychologists, commonly assume conditional independence of choices when constructing likelihood functions for structural estimation. I test this assumption using data from a new experiment designed for this purpose. Within the limits of the experiment’s identifying restriction and designed power to detect deviations from conditional independence, conditional independence is not rejected. In naturally occurring data, concerns about violations of conditional independence are certainly proper and well-taken (for well-known reasons). However, when an experimenter employs contemporary state-of-the-art experimental mechanisms and designs, the current evidence suggests that conditional independence is an acceptable assumption for analyzing data so generated.

[1]  N. Wilcox Stochastically more risk averse: A contextual theory of stochastic discrete choice under risk , 2011 .

[2]  J. Quiggin A theory of anticipated utility , 1982 .

[3]  James C. Cox,et al.  Paradoxes and mechanisms for choice under risk , 2015 .

[4]  P. Diggle,et al.  Modelling multivariate binary data with alternating logistic regressions , 1993 .

[5]  J. Rieskamp The probabilistic nature of preferential choice. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[6]  Robert Sugden,et al.  A Microeconometric Test of Alternative Stochastic Theories of Risky Choice , 2002 .

[7]  R. Sugden,et al.  Does the Random-Lottery Incentive System Elicit True Preferences? An Experimental Investigation , 2016 .

[8]  N. Wilcox Stochastic models for binary discrete choice under risk: a critical primer and econometric comparison , 2008 .

[9]  S. Lipsitz,et al.  Generalized estimating equations for correlated binary data: Using the odds ratio as a measure of association , 1991 .

[10]  R. Sugden,et al.  Testing Different Stochastic Specificationsof Risky Choice , 1998 .

[11]  A. Tversky,et al.  Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty , 1992 .

[12]  Christopher P. Chambers,et al.  Incentives in Experiments: A Theoretical Analysis , 2018, Journal of Political Economy.

[13]  Charles F. Manski,et al.  Alternative Estimators and Sample Designs for Discrete Choice Analysis , 1981 .

[14]  J. Quiggin,et al.  Generalized Expected Utility Theory. The Rank-Dependent Model , 1996 .