IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cgr/cgsser/06-03.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Reducing Ambiguity in Lotteries: That Knowing is Better than Wondering

Author

Listed:
  • Julian Conrads

    (University of Cologne)

  • Tommaso Reggiani

    (University of Cologne)

  • Rainer Michael Rilke

    (University of Cologne)

Abstract

Ambiguity about the chances of winning represents a key aspect in lotteries. By means of a controlled field experiment, we exogenously vary the degree of ambiguity about the winning chances of lotteries organized to incentivize the contribution for a public good. In one people have been simply informed about the maximum number of potential participants (i.e., the number of lottery tickets released). In a second treatment this information has been omitted as in all traditional lotteries. Our general finding shows that simply reducing the degree of ambiguity of the lottery leads to a sizable and significant increase (67%) in the participation rate. This result is robust to alternative prize configurations.

Suggested Citation

  • Julian Conrads & Tommaso Reggiani & Rainer Michael Rilke, 2015. "Reducing Ambiguity in Lotteries: That Knowing is Better than Wondering," Cologne Graduate School Working Paper Series 06-03, Cologne Graduate School in Management, Economics and Social Sciences.
    • Handle: RePEc:cgr:cgsser:06-03
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.cgs.uni-koeln.de/fileadmin/wiso_fak/cgs/pdf/working_paper/cgswp_06-03.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Uri Gneezy & Pedro Rey-Biel, 2014. "On The Relative Efficiency Of Performance Pay And Noncontingent Incentives," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 12(1), pages 62-72, February.
    2. Craig E. Landry & Andreas Lange & John A. List & Michael K. Price & Nicholas G. Rupp, 2006. "Toward an Understanding of the Economics of Charity: Evidence from a Field Experiment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(2), pages 747-782.
    3. Andreas Lange & John A. List & Michael K. Price, 2007. "Using Lotteries To Finance Public Goods: Theory And Experimental Evidence," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 48(3), pages 901-927, August.
    4. Daniel Ellsberg, 1963. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms: Reply," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 77(2), pages 336-342.
    5. Camerer, Colin & Weber, Martin, 1992. "Recent Developments in Modeling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 325-370, October.
    6. John Morgan, 2000. "Financing Public Goods by Means of Lotteries," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 67(4), pages 761-784.
    7. Faravelli, Marco & Stanca, Luca, 2012. "Single versus multiple-prize all-pay auctions to finance public goods: An experimental analysis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 677-688.
    8. John Morgan & Martin Sefton, 2000. "Funding Public Goods with Lotteries: Experimental Evidence," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 67(4), pages 785-810.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Fabbri, Marco, 2015. "Shaping tax norms through lotteries," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 8-15.
    2. Faravelli, Marco & Stanca, Luca, 2014. "Economic incentives and social preferences: Causal evidence of non-separability," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 273-289.
    3. Natalie Struwe & Esther Blanco & James M. Walker, 2024. "Competition among public good providers for donor rewards," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 27(1), pages 215-243, March.
    4. Lange, Andreas, 2006. "Providing public goods in two steps," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 173-178, May.
    5. Andreas Lange & Andrew Stocking, 2009. "Charitable Memberships, Volunteering, and Discounts: Evidence from a Large-Scale Online Field Experiment," NBER Working Papers 14941, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Craig E. Landry & Andreas Lange & John A. List & Michael K. Price & Nicholas G. Rupp, 2010. "Is a Donor in Hand Better Than Two in the Bush? Evidence from a Natural Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(3), pages 958-983, June.
    7. Sander Onderstal & Arthur J.C. Schram & Adriaan R. Soetevent, 2011. "Bidding to give in the Field: Door-to-Door Fundraisers had it right from the Start," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 11-070/1, Tinbergen Institute, revised 10 Nov 2011.
    8. Craig E. Landry & Andreas Lange & John A. List & Michael K. Price & Nicholas G. Rupp, 2006. "Toward an Understanding of the Economics of Charity: Evidence from a Field Experiment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(2), pages 747-782.
    9. Kimberley Scharf & Sarah Smith & Mark Ottoni-Wilhelm, 2022. "Lift and Shift: The Effect of Fundraising Interventions in Charity Space and Time," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 296-321, August.
    10. Lange, Andreas & List, John A. & Price, Michael K., 2007. "A fundraising mechanism inspired by historical tontines: Theory and experimental evidence," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(9), pages 1750-1782, September.
    11. Spencer, Michael A. & Swallow, Stephen K. & Shogren, Jason F. & List, John A., 2009. "Rebate rules in threshold public good provision," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(5-6), pages 798-806, June.
    12. Carpenter, Jeffrey & Matthews, Peter Hans, 2017. "Using raffles to fund public goods: Lessons from a field experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 30-38.
    13. M. Fabbri & P. N. Barbieri & M. Bigoni, 2016. "Ride Your Luck! A Field Experiment on Lottery-based Incentives for Compliance," Working Papers wp1089, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    14. Onderstal, Sander & Schram, Arthur J.H.C. & Soetevent, Adriaan R., 2013. "Bidding to give in the field," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 72-85.
    15. Liu, Tracy Xiao & Lu, Jingfeng & Wang, Zhewei, 2022. "Efficient public good provision by lotteries with nonlinear pricing," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 204(C), pages 680-698.
    16. Martin Kolmar & Dana Sisak, 2014. "(In)efficient public-goods provision through contests," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 43(1), pages 239-259, June.
    17. Faravelli, Marco & Stanca, Luca, 2012. "When less is more: Rationing and rent dissipation in stochastic contests," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 170-183.
    18. Landry, Craig E. & Price, Michael K., 2007. "Earmarking lottery proceeds for public goods: Empirical evidence from U.S. lotto expenditures," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 451-455, June.
    19. Faravelli, Marco & Stanca, Luca, 2012. "Single versus multiple-prize all-pay auctions to finance public goods: An experimental analysis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 677-688.
    20. Duffy, John & Matros, Alexander, 2021. "All-pay auctions versus lotteries as provisional fixed-prize fundraising mechanisms: Theory and evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 192(C), pages 434-464.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ambiguity; lottery; field experiment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:cgr:cgsser:06-03. 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: David Kusterer (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cgkoede.html .

    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.