Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81(3), 561–565.īecker, G., DeGroot, M., & Marschak, J. Subjective probability revision and subsequent decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 75(3), 354–359.īeach, L. Subjective probabilities inferred from estimates and bets. Technical report, Jena Economic Research Paper.īeach, L., & Phillips, L. ![]() Applying Quadratic Scoring Rule transparently in multiple choice settings: a note. European Economic Review, 62, 17–40.Īrtinger, F., Exadaktylos, F., Koppel, H., & Sääksvuori, L. Eliciting beliefs: Proper scoring rules, incentives, stakes and hedging. Subjective probabilities in games: A solution to the overbidding puzzle. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 48(3), 207–220.Īrmantier, O., & Treich, N. Discovering personal probabilities when utility functions are unknown. Then \(S\left( r,1\right) =P\left( Z\le r\right) u\left( y\right) +\int _\left( z\right) \).Īllen, F. Let \(u\left( z\right) \) be the utility of prize \(z\). The mechanism can also be presented as a scoring rule. ![]() The certainty equivalent is the value of \(q\) where the subject switches from the lottery to the sure amount. ![]() At the end, one decision is randomly selected for payment. Rather than asking for the lowest price that the subject is willing to pay for prospect \(y_E g\), this mechanism can also be implemented by letting subjects complete a menu list of choices between a sure amount \(q\) and the prospect \(y_Eg\), where \(q\) is increasing for each choice.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |