Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-g9frx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-17T06:48:34.813Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Testing for the Presence of a Tremble in Economic Experiments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Peter G. Moffatt  and
Simon A. Peters
Peter G. Moffatt*
Affiliation:
School of Economic and Social Studies, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom
Simon A. Peters*
Affiliation:
School of Economic Studies, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, United Kingdom
*
email: p.moffatt@uea.ac.uk
email: simon.peters@man.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The classical trinity of tests is used to check for the presence of a tremble in economic experiments in which the response variable is binary. A tremble is said to occur when an agent makes a decision completely at random, without regard to the values taken by the explanatory variables. The properties of the tests are discussed, and an extension of the methodology is used to test for the presence of a tremble in binary panel data from a well-known economic experiment.

Keywords

experimental economicshypothesis testingprobitrandom effectstrembles

JEL classification

C23: Panel Data Models • Spatio-temporal Models C25: Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models • Discrete Regressors • Proportions • Probabilities C91: Laboratory, Individual Behavior D81: Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 4 , Issue 3 , December 2001 , pp. 221 - 228
Copyright
Copyright © 2002 Economic Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Avery, R.B., Hansen, L.P., and Hotz, V.J. (1983). “Multiperiod Probit Models and Orthogonality Condition Estimation.” International Economic Review. 24, 21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey, L.G. (1988). Misspecification Testing in Econometrics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Harless, D.W. and Camerer, C.F. (1994). “The Predictive Utility of Generalized Expected Utility Theories.” Econometrica. 62, 1251–1290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausman, J.A., Abrevava, J., and Scott-Martin, F.M. (1998). “Misclassification of the Dependent Variable in a Discrete-Response Setting.” Journal of Econometrics. 87, 239–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hey, J.D. and Orme, C. (1994). “Investigating Generalisations of Expected Utility Theory Using Experimental Data.” Econometrica. 62, 1291–1326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsiao, C. and Sun, B.-H. (1999). “Modeling Survey Response Bias—with an Analysis of the Demand for an Advanced Electronic Device.” Journal of Econometrics. 89, 15–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewbel, A. (2000). “Identification of the Binary Choice Model with Missclassification.” Econometric Theory. 16, 603–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loomes, G., Moffatt, P.G., and Sugden, R. (2001). “A Microeconometric Test of Alternative Stochastic Theories of Risky Choice.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. forthcoming.Google Scholar
Loomes, G. and Sugden, R. (1998). “Testing Different Stochastic Specifications of Risky Choice.” Economica. 65, 581–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selten, R. (1975). “Reexamination of the Perfectness Concept for Equilibrium Points in Extensive Games.” International Journal of Game Theory. 4, 25–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar