IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jrisku/v51y2015i3p245-266.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

No aspiration to win? An experimental test of the aspiration level model

Author

Listed:
  • Enrico Diecidue
  • Moshe Levy
  • Jeroen Ven

Abstract

A growing body of literature studies the effects of aspiration levels on people’s choices. Researchers often assume an aspiration level at zero, which helps to explain several empirical phenomena. In two experiments, we test this assumption. Our experimental design exploits the discontinuity in the utility function at the aspiration level. The lotteries vary in complexity in terms of the number of outcomes and the use of round or non-round probabilities. We do not find support for an aspiration level at zero, neither for simple lotteries nor for complex lotteries. Overall, our aggregate results are consistent with prospect theory, but can also be explained by a population with heterogeneous aspiration levels instead of a homogeneous aspiration level at zero. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Suggested Citation

  • Enrico Diecidue & Moshe Levy & Jeroen Ven, 2015. "No aspiration to win? An experimental test of the aspiration level model," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(3), pages 245-266, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jrisku:v:51:y:2015:i:3:p:245-266
    DOI: 10.1007/s11166-015-9229-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11166-015-9229-0
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11166-015-9229-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Colin Camerer & Linda Babcock & George Loewenstein & Richard Thaler, 1997. "Labor Supply of New York City Cabdrivers: One Day at a Time," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 407-441.
    2. Hans P. Binswanger, 1980. "Attitudes Toward Risk: Experimental Measurement in Rural India," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 62(3), pages 395-407.
    3. 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.
    4. Martin G. Kocher & Julius Pahlke & Stefan T. Trautmann, 2013. "Tempus Fugit : Time Pressure in Risky Decisions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(10), pages 2380-2391, October.
    5. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    6. Binswanger, Hans P, 1981. "Attitudes toward Risk: Theoretical Implications of an Experiment in Rural India," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 91(364), pages 867-890, December.
    7. Levy, Haim & Levy, Moshe, 2009. "The safety first expected utility model: Experimental evidence and economic implications," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 33(8), pages 1494-1506, August.
    8. Steffen Andersen & Glenn Harrison & Morten Lau & E. Rutström, 2009. "Elicitation using multiple price list formats," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 12(3), pages 365-366, September.
    9. Helga Fehr-Duda & Adrian Bruhin & Thomas Epper & Renate Schubert, 2010. "Rationality on the rise: Why relative risk aversion increases with stake size," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 147-180, April.
    10. Weber, Martin & Camerer, Colin F., 1998. "The disposition effect in securities trading: an experimental analysis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 167-184, January.
    11. Erio Castagnoli & Marco LiCalzi, 2005. "Expected utility without utility," Game Theory and Information 0508004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Stefan Zeisberger & Thomas Langer & Martin Weber, 2012. "Why does myopia decrease the willingness to invest? Is it myopic loss aversion or myopic loss probability aversion?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 72(1), pages 35-50, January.
    13. Enrico Diecidue & Jeroen van de Ven, 2008. "Aspiration Level, Probability Of Success And Failure, And Expected Utility," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 49(2), pages 683-700, May.
    14. Mellers, Barbara & Weiss, Robin & Birnbaum, Michael, 1992. "Violations of Dominance in Pricing Judgments," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 73-90, February.
    15. Nathalie Etchart-Vincent & Olivier l’Haridon, 2011. "Monetary incentives in the loss domain and behavior toward risk: An experimental comparison of three reward schemes including real losses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 61-83, February.
    16. Arvid Hoffmann & Sam Henry & Nikos Kalogeras, 2013. "Aspirations as reference points: an experimental investigation of risk behavior over time," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 75(2), pages 193-210, August.
    17. Venkatraman, Vinod & Payne, John W. & Huettel, Scott A., 2014. "An overall probability of winning heuristic for complex risky decisions: Choice and eye fixation evidence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 125(2), pages 73-87.
    18. Slovic, Paul & Finucane, Melissa L. & Peters, Ellen & MacGregor, Donald G., 2007. "The affect heuristic," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(3), pages 1333-1352, March.
    19. Weber, Elke U. & Anderson, Carolyn J. & Birnbaum, Michael H., 1992. "A theory of perceived risk and attractiveness," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 492-523, August.
    20. Manel Baucells & Antonio Villasís, 2010. "Stability of risk preferences and the reflection effect of prospect theory," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 193-211, February.
    21. Camerer, Colin F, 1989. "An Experimental Test of Several Generalized Utility Theories," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 61-104, April.
    22. John W. Payne & Dan J. Laughhunn & Roy Crum, 1981. "Note---Further Tests of Aspiration Level Effects in Risky Choice Behavior," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(8), pages 953-958, August.
    23. John W. Payne & Dan J. Laughhunn & Roy Crum, 1980. "Translation of Gambles and Aspiration Level Effects in Risky Choice Behavior," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(10), pages 1039-1060, October.
    24. John Payne, 2005. "It is Whether You Win or Lose: The Importance of the Overall Probabilities of Winning or Losing in Risky Choice," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 5-19, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Levy, Moshe, 2022. "An inter-temporal CAPM based on First order Stochastic Dominance," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 298(2), pages 734-739.
    2. Giuseppe Attanasi & Nikolaos Georgantzís & Valentina Rotondi & Daria Vigani, 2018. "Lottery- and survey-based risk attitudes linked through a multichoice elicitation task," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(3), pages 341-372, May.
    3. Douadia Bougherara & Lana Friesen & Céline Nauges, 2021. "Risk Taking with Left- and Right-Skewed Lotteries," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 62(1), pages 89-112, February.
    4. Bougherara, Douadia & Friesen, Lana & Nauges, Céline, 2022. "Risk-taking and skewness-seeking behavior in a demographically diverse population," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 201(C), pages 83-104.
    5. Konstantinos Georgalos & Nathan Nabil, 2023. "Heuristics Unveiled," Working Papers 400814162, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    6. Giorgio Coricelli & Enrico Diecidue & Francesco D. Zaffuto, 2018. "Evidence for multiple strategies in choice under risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 56(2), pages 193-210, April.
    7. Stefan Zeisberger, 2022. "Do people care about loss probabilities?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 65(2), pages 185-213, October.
    8. Alex Markle & George Wu & Rebecca White & Aaron Sackett, 2018. "Goals as reference points in marathon running: A novel test of reference dependence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 19-50, February.
    9. Larbi Alaoui & Antonio Penta, 2022. "Attitudes Towards Success and Failure," Working Papers 1336, Barcelona School of Economics.
    10. Hong Chao & Chun-Yu Ho & Xiangdong Qin, 2017. "Risk taking after absolute and relative wealth changes: The role of reference point adaptation," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 157-186, April.
    11. Haim Levy & Moshe Levy, 2021. "Prospect theory, constant relative risk aversion, and the investment horizon," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(4), pages 1-21, April.
    12. Larbi Alaoui & Antonio Penta, 2022. "Attitudes towards success and failure," Economics Working Papers 1831, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    13. Konstantinos Georgalos & Nathan Nabil, 2023. "Testing Models of Complexity Aversion," Working Papers 400814269, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stefan Zeisberger, 2022. "Do people care about loss probabilities?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 65(2), pages 185-213, October.
    2. Larbi Alaoui & Antonio Penta, 2022. "Attitudes towards success and failure," Economics Working Papers 1831, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    3. Neszveda, G., 2019. "Essays on behavioral finance," Other publications TiSEM 05059039-5236-42a3-be1b-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    4. Larbi Alaoui & Antonio Penta, 2022. "Attitudes Towards Success and Failure," Working Papers 1336, Barcelona School of Economics.
    5. Giuseppe Attanasi & Nikolaos Georgantzís & Valentina Rotondi & Daria Vigani, 2018. "Lottery- and survey-based risk attitudes linked through a multichoice elicitation task," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(3), pages 341-372, May.
    6. Julius Pahlke & Sebastian Strasser & Ferdinand Vieider, 2015. "Responsibility effects in decision making under risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 125-146, October.
    7. Maier, Johannes & Rüger, Maximilian, 2010. "Measuring Risk Aversion Model-Independently," Discussion Papers in Economics 11873, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    8. Giorgio Coricelli & Enrico Diecidue & Francesco D. Zaffuto, 2018. "Evidence for multiple strategies in choice under risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 56(2), pages 193-210, April.
    9. Venkatraman, Vinod & Payne, John W. & Huettel, Scott A., 2014. "An overall probability of winning heuristic for complex risky decisions: Choice and eye fixation evidence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 125(2), pages 73-87.
    10. Alex Markle & George Wu & Rebecca White & Aaron Sackett, 2018. "Goals as reference points in marathon running: A novel test of reference dependence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 19-50, February.
    11. George Wu & Alex B. Markle, 2008. "An Empirical Test of Gain-Loss Separability in Prospect Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(7), pages 1322-1335, July.
    12. Eyal Ert & Ido Erev, 2010. "On the Descriptive Value of Loss Aversion in Decisions under Risk," Harvard Business School Working Papers 10-056, Harvard Business School.
    13. Ferdinand M. Vieider & Peter Martinsson & Pham Khanh Nam & Nghi Truong, 2019. "Risk preferences and development revisited," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(1), pages 1-21, February.
    14. David B. Brown & Enrico De Giorgi & Melvyn Sim, 2012. "Aspirational Preferences and Their Representation by Risk Measures," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(11), pages 2095-2113, November.
    15. Moshe Levy, 2022. "An evolutionary explanation of the Allais paradox," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 32(5), pages 1545-1574, November.
    16. Ferdinand M. Vieider & Clara Villegas-Palacio & Peter Martinsson & Milagros Mejía, 2016. "Risk Taking For Oneself And Others: A Structural Model Approach," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 54(2), pages 879-894, April.
    17. Vieider, Ferdinand M. & Truong, Nghi & Martinsson, Peter & Pham Khanh Nam & Martinsson, Peter, 2013. "Risk preferences and development revisited: A field experiment in Vietnam," Discussion Papers, WZB Junior Research Group Risk and Development SP II 2013-403, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    18. David B. Brown & Melvyn Sim, 2009. "Satisficing Measures for Analysis of Risky Positions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(1), pages 71-84, January.
    19. Ranganathan, Kavitha & Lejarraga, Tomás, 2021. "Elicitation of risk preferences through satisficing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    20. Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2012. "A genuine foundation for prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 97-113, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Decision under risk; Aspiration levels; C91; D81;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jrisku:v:51:y:2015:i:3:p:245-266. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.