Why We Should Not Be Silent About Noise

There is an odd contradiction about much of the empirical (experimental) literature: The data is analysed using statistical tools which presuppose that there is some noise or randomness in the data, but the source and possible nature of the noise are rarely explicitly discussed. This paper argues that the noise should be brought out into the open, and its nature and implications openly discussed. Whether the statistical analysis involves testing or estimation, the analysis inevitably is built upon some assumed stochastic structure to the noise. Different assumptions justify different analyses, which means that the appropriate type of analysis depends crucially on the stochastic nature of the noise. This paper explores such issues and argues that ignoring the noise can be dangerous.

[1]  Enrica Carbone,et al.  Investigation of stochastic preference theory using experimental data , 1997 .

[2]  John D. Hey,et al.  Stochastic choice with deterministic preferences: An experimental investigation , 1995 .

[3]  M. Abdellaoui,et al.  The risk-structure dependence effect:Experimenting with an eye to decision-aiding , 1998, Ann. Oper. Res..

[4]  Colin Camerer,et al.  Violations of the betweenness axiom and nonlinearity in probability , 1994 .

[5]  J. Hey,et al.  A Comparison of the Estimates of Expected Utility and Non-Expected-Utility Preference Functionals , 1995 .

[6]  Mark J. Machina,et al.  Stochastic Choice Functions Generated from Deterministic Preferences over Lotteries , 1985 .

[7]  C. Starmer.  Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk , 2000 .

[8]  John D. Hey,et al.  Which Error Story is Best? , 2000, Experiments in Economics.

[9]  Colin Camerer.  Individual Decision Making , 2020, The Handbook of Experimental Economics.

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

[11]  Colin Camerer.  An experimental test of several generalized utility theories , 1989 .

[12]  M. Allais.  Le comportement de l'homme rationnel devant le risque : critique des postulats et axiomes de l'ecole americaine , 1953 .

[13]  G. Shafer,et al.  Expected Utility Hypotheses and the Allais Paradox. , 1982 .

[14]  Richard Gonzalez,et al.  On the Shape of the Probability Weighting Function , 1999, Cognitive Psychology.

[15]  John D. Hey,et al.  Are Preference Reversals Errors? An Experimental Investigation , 2004, Experiments in Economics.

[16]  C. Starmer,et al.  Testing New Theories of Choice under Uncertainty using the Common Consequence Effect , 1992 .

[17]  Reinhard Selten,et al.  Properties of a measure of predictive success , 1991 .

[18]  Richard Gonzalez,et al.  Curvature of the Probability Weighting Function , 1996 .

[19]  John D. Hey,et al.  Experimental Investigations of Errors in Decision Making under Risk Experimental investigations of errors in decision making under risk , 1995 .

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

[21]  Enrica Carbone,et al.  A Comparison of the Estimates of EU and non-EU Preference Functionals Using Data from Pairwise Choice and Complete Ranking Experiments , 1995 .

[22]  John D. Hey,et al.  Estimation of Expected Utility and Non-Expected Utility Preference Functionals Using Complete Ranking Data , 1994 .

[23]  David W Harless,et al.  The predictive utility of generalized expected utility theories , 1994 .

[24]  Pavlo R. Blavatskyy,et al.  Stochastic expected utility theory , 2005 .

[25]  John D. Hey.  Does Repetition Improve Consistency? , 2001 .

[26]  Richard Gonzalez,et al.  Common Consequence Conditions in Decision Making under Risk , 1998 .

[27]  William S. Neilson,et al.  A Further Examination of Cumulative Prospect Theory Parameterizations , 2002 .

[28]  Robert Sugden,et al.  Probability and juxtaposition effects: An experimental investigation of the common ratio effect , 1989 .

[29]  N. Wilcox,et al.  Decisions, Error and Heterogeneity , 1997 .

[30]  John D. Hey,et al.  Are Preference Reversals Errors , 2004 .

[31]  J. Hey,et al.  INVESTIGATING GENERALIZATIONS OF EXPECTED UTILITY THEORY USING EXPERIMENTAL DATA , 1994, Experiments in Economics.

[32]  Larry G. Epstein,et al.  MIXTURE SYMMETRY AND QUADRATIC UTILITY , 1991 .

[33]  Robert Sugden,et al.  Incorporating a stochastic element into decision theories , 1995 .