Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorCappelen, Alexander W.
dc.contributor.authorHole, Astri Drange
dc.contributor.authorSørensen, Erik Ø.
dc.contributor.authorTungodden, Bertil
dc.date.accessioned2009-09-22T07:58:38Z
dc.date.available2009-09-22T07:58:38Z
dc.date.issued2009-07
dc.identifier.issn0804-6824
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11250/163188
dc.description.abstractIn a comment to Cappelen, Hole, Sørensen, and Tungodden (2007b), Conte and Moffatt (2009) challenge our use of a random utility model when studying individual choices in a fairness experiment. They propose an alternative approach, what we call the random behavioral model, and they show that the choice of modeling strategy has profound implications for our understanding of the observed behavior. In this note, we discuss how the two approaches differ, and we show that the random behavioral model of Conte and Moffatt (2009) fails to fit the data from our fairness experiment.en
dc.language.isoengen
dc.publisherNorwegian School of Economics and Business Administration. Department of Economicsen
dc.relation.ispartofseriesDiscussion paperen
dc.relation.ispartofseries2009:7en
dc.titleModeling individual choices in experiments : reply to Conte and Moffatten
dc.typeWorking paperen
dc.subject.nsiVDP::Samfunnsvitenskap: 200::Økonomi: 210::Samfunnsøkonomi: 212en


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record