This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

The Impact of Incentives upon Risky Choice Experiments

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Beattie, Jane
Loomes, Graham
Abstract

Much of the evidence raising doubts about expected utility theory (EUT) comes from experiments involving hypothetical decisions. Most of the rest of the evidence comes from experiments where respondents are asked to make a large number of decisions, knowing that only one of these will provide the basis for payment. Concerns have often been expressed about the "realness" of such data, and their reliability as a basis for criticizing EUT and promoting alternative theories. The present article reviews this debate and reports new experimental results that directly address this issue. Copyright 1997 by Kluwer Academic Publishers

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://journals.kluweronline.com/issn/0895-5646/contents
File Format: text/html
File Function: link to full text
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Publisher Info
Article provided by Springer in its journal Journal of Risk and Uncertainty.

Volume (Year): 14 (1997)
Issue (Month): 2 (March)
Pages: 155-68
Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Handle: RePEc:kap:jrisku:v:14:y:1997:i:2:p:155-68

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=100299

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Christopher F. Baum).

Related research
Keywords:

Other versions of this item:

Cited by:
(explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)
  1. Peter Brooks & Horst Zank, 2005. "Loss Averse Behavior," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 301-325, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  2. Marielle Brunette & Laure Cabantous & Stéphane Couture & Anne Stenger, 2008. "Insurance Demand for Disaster-type Risks and the Separation of Attitudes toward Risk and Ambiguity: an Experimental Study," Working Papers - Cahiers du LEF 2008-05, Laboratoire d'Economie Forestiere, AgroParisTech-INRA. [Downloadable!]
  3. Joseph G. Eisenhauer, 2006. "The Shadow Price of Morality," Eastern Economic Journal, Eastern Economic Association, vol. 32(3), pages 437-456, Summer. [Downloadable!]
  4. Elyès Jouini & Selima Ben Mansour & Clotilde Napp, 2006. "Is There a Pessimistic Bias in Individual Beliefs? Evidence from a Simple Survey," Post-Print halshs-00176518_v1, HAL. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  5. Robin Cubitt & Maria Ruiz-Martos & Chris Starmer, 2005. "Are bygones bygones?," Discussion Papers 2005-21, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham. [Downloadable!]
  6. Robin Cubitt & Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden, 1998. "On the Validity of the Random Lottery Incentive System," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 115-131, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  7. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Han Bleichrodt & Olivier L’Haridon, 2008. "A tractable method to measure utility and loss aversion under prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 245-266, June. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  8. Di Mauro, Carmela & Maffioletti, Anna, 2001. "Reaction to Uncertainty and Market Mechanism:Experimental Evidence," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 01-41, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim & Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim. [Downloadable!]
  9. Nicholas Bardsley, 2000. "Control Without Deception: Individual Behaviour in Free-Riding Experiments Revisited," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 3(3), pages 215-240, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  10. Han Bleichrodt & José Luis Pinto, 2000. "An Experimental Test of Loss Aversion and Scale Compatibility," Economics Working Papers 467, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra. [Downloadable!]
  11. Hopfensitz, Astrid, 2009. "Previous outcomes and reference dependence: A meta study of repeated investment tasks with and without restricted feedback," MPRA Paper 16096, University Library of Munich, Germany. [Downloadable!]
  12. Selima Mansour & Elyès Jouini & Clotilde Napp, 2006. "Is There a “Pessimisticâ€\x9D Bias in Individual Beliefs? Evidence from a Simple Survey," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 61(4), pages 345-362, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  13. Ingmar H. A. Franken & Irina Georgieva & Peter Muris & Ap Dijksterhuis, 2006. "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer: On risk aversion in behavioral decision-making," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 1, pages 153-158, November. [Downloadable!]
  14. Landeo, Claudia M. & Spier, Kathryn E., 2007. "Naked Exclusion: An Experimental Study of Contracts with Externalities," MPRA Paper 9143, University Library of Munich, Germany. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  15. Fiore, Annamaria, 2009. "Experimental Economics: Some Methodological Notes," MPRA Paper 12498, University Library of Munich, Germany. [Downloadable!]
  16. Robin P. Cubitt & Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden, 2001. "Discovered preferences and the experimental evidence of violations of expected utility theory," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 8(3), pages 385-414, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  17. Blanco, Mariana & Engelmann, Dirk & Koch, Alexander K. & Normann, Hans-Theo, 2008. "Belief Elicitation in Experiments: Is there a Hedging Problem?," IZA Discussion Papers 3517, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA). [Downloadable!]
  18. John Hey & Jinkwon Lee, 2005. "Do Subjects Separate (or Are They Sophisticated)?," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 8(3), pages 233-265, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  19. Nicholas Bardsley, 2000. "Control without Deception," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 00-107/1, Tinbergen Institute. [Downloadable!]
  20. Francisco Alpízar & Till Requate & Albert Schram, 2004. "Collective versus Random Fining: An Experimental Study on Controlling Ambient Pollution," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 29(2), pages 231-252, October. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  21. Nathalie Etchart-Vincent, 2009. "Probability weighting and the ‘level’ and ‘spacing’ of outcomes: An experimental study over losses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 45-63, August. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  22. Han Bleichrodt & José Luis Pinto, 2000. "An Experimental Test of Loss Aversion and Scale Compatibility," Working Papers, Research Center on Health and Economics 467, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra. [Downloadable!]
  23. Eric Danan & Anthony Ziegelmeyer, 2006. "Are preferences complete? An experimental measurement of indecisiveness under risk," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2006-01, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group. [Downloadable!]
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? IDEAS also indexes software components.

This page was last updated on 2009-11-7.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.