Risk aversion in the laboratory

Research in Experimental Economics

Volumn 12, Issue , 2008, Pages 41-196

  Harrison, Glenn W ^a   Elisabet Rutstrom E ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 42449095480     PISSN: 01932306     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1016/S0193-2306(08)00003-3     Document Type: Review

References (211)

1. Abdellaoui, M. (2000). Parameter-free elicitation of utilities and probability weighting functions. Management Science, 46, 1497-1512.
2. Abdellaoui, M., Barrios, C., & Wakker, P. P. (2007a). Reconciling introspective utility with revealed preference: Experimental arguments based on prospect theory. Journal of Econometrics, 138, 356-378.
3. Abdellaoui, M., Bleichrodt, H., & Paraschiv, C. (2007b). Measuring loss aversion under prospect theory: A parameter-free approach. Management Science, 53(10), 1659-1674.
4. Allais, M. (1979). The foundations of positive theory of choice involving risk and a criticism of the postulates and Axioms of the American school. In: M. Allais & O. Hagen (Eds), Expected utility hypotheses and the Allais paradox. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.
5. Andersen, S., Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutström, E. E. (2006a). Elicitation using multiple price lists. Experimental Economics, 9(4), 383-405.
6. Andersen, S., Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutström, E. E. (2008a). Eliciting risk and time preferences. Econometrica, 76, forthcoming.
7. Andersen, S., Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutström, E. E. (2008b). Lost in state space: Are preferences stable? International Economic Review, 49, forthcoming.
8. Andersen, S., Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutström, E. E. (2008c). Risk aversion in game shows. In: J. C. Cox & G. W. Harrison (Eds), Risk aversion in experiments (Vol. 12). Bingley, UK: Emerald, Research in Experimental Economics.
9. Andersen, S., Harrison, G. W., & Rutström, E. E. (2006b). Choice behavior, asset integration and natural reference points. Working Paper 06-04. Department of Economics, College of Business Administration, University of Central Florida.
10. Attema, A. E., Bleichrodt, H., Rohde, K. I. M., & Wakker, P. P. (2006). Time-tradeoff sequences for quantifying and visualizing the degree of time inconsistency, using only pencil and paper. Working Paper. Erasmus University, Rotterdam.
11. Ballinger, T. P., & Wilcox, N. T. (1997). Decisions, error and heterogeneity. Economic Journal, 107, 1090-1105.
12. Barr, A. (2003). Risk pooling, commitment, and information: An experimental test of two fundamental assumptions. Working Paper 2003-05. Centre for the Study of African Economies, Department of Economics, University of Oxford.
13. Barr, A., & Packard, T. (2002). Revealed preference and self insurance: Can we learn from the self employed in Chile? Policy Research Working Paper #2754. World Bank, Washington DC.
14. Battalio, R. C., Kagel, J. C., & Jiranyakul, K. (1990). Testing between alternative models of choice under uncertainty: Some initial results. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 3, 25-50.
15. Beattie, J., & Loomes, G. (1997). The impact of incentives upon risky choice experiments. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 14, 149-162.
16. Beck, J. H. (1994). An experimental test of preferences for the distribution of income and individual risk aversion. Eastern Economic Journal, 20(2), 131-145.
17. Becker, G. M., DeGroot, M. H., & Marschak, J. (1964). Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behavioral Science, 9, 226-232.
18. Benartzi, S., & Thaler, R. H. (1995). Myopic loss aversion and the equity premium puzzle. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 111(1), 75-92.
19. Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (2005). Risk preference instability across institutions: A dilemma. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102, 4209-4214.
20. Binswanger, H. P. (1980). Attitudes toward risk: Experimental measurement in rural India, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 62, 395-407.
21. Binswanger, H. P. (1981). Attitudes toward risk: Theoretical implications of an experiment in rural India. Economic Journal, 91, 867-890.
22. Birnbaum, M. H. (2004). Tests of rank-dependent utility and cumulative prospect theory in gambles represented by natural frequencies: Effects of format, event framing, and branch splitting. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 95, 40-65.
23. Bleichrodt, H., & Pinto, J. L. (2000). A parameter-free elicitation of the probability weighting function in medical decision analysis. Management Science, 46, 1485-1496.
24. Bohm, P. (2002). Pitfalls in experimental economics. In: F. Andersson & H. Holm (Eds), Experimental economics: Financial markets, auctions, and decision making. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
25. Botelho, A., Harrison, G. W., Pinto, L. M. C., & Rutström, E. E. (2005a). Social norms and social choice. Working Paper 05-23. Department of Economics, College of Business Administration, University of Central Florida.
26. Botelho, A., Harrison, G. W., Pinto, L. M. C., & Rutström, E. E. (2005b). Testing static game theory with dynamic experiments: A case study of public goods. Working Paper 05-25. Department of Economics, College of Business Administration, University of Central Florida.
27. Bullock, D. S., & Rutström, E. E. (2007). Policy making and rent-dissipation: An experimental test. Experimental Economics, 10(1), 21-36.
28. Cadsby, C. B., Song, F., & Tapon, F. (2007). Sorting and incentive effects of pay for performance: An experimental investigation. Academy of Management Journal, 10(2), 387-405.
29. Calman, K. C., & Royston, G. (1997). Risk language and dialects. British Medical Journal, 315, 939-942.
30. Camerer, C. F. (1989). An experimental test of several generalized utility theories. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2, 61-104.
31. Camerer, C. F. (2000). Prospect theory in the wild: Evidence from the field. In: D. Kahneman & A. Tversky (Eds), Choices, values and frames. New York: Cambridge University Press.
32. Camerer, C. F. (2005). Three cheers - psychological, theoretical, empirical - for loss aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, XLII, 129-133.
33. Camerer, C., & Ho, T. (1994). Violations of the betweenness axiom and nonlinearity in probability. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 8, 167-196.
34. Camerer, C., & Hogarth, R. (1999). The effects of financial incentives in experiments: A review and capital-labor framework. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19, 7-42.
35. Camerer, C., & Lovallo, D. (1999). Overconfidencc and excess entry: An experimental approach. American Economic Review, 59(1), 306-318.
36. Casari, M., Ham, J. C., & Kagel, J. H. (2007). Selection bias, demographic effects and ability effects in common value experiments. American Economic. Review, 97(4), 1278-1304.
37. Chambers, R. G., & Quiggin, J. (2000). Uncertainty, production, choice, and agency: The state-contingent approach. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
38. Chew, S. H., Karni, E., & Safra, Z. (1987). Risk aversion in the theory of expected utility with rank dependent probabilities. Journal of Economic Theory, 42, 370-381.
39. Clarke, K. A. (2003). Nonparametric model discrimination in international relations. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 47(1), 72-93.
40. Cleveland, W. S., Harris, C. S., & McGill, R. (1982). Judgements of circle sizes on statistical maps. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 77(379), 541-547.
41. Cleveland, W. S., Harris, C. S., & McGill, R. (1983). Experiments on quantitative judgements of graphs and maps. Bell System Technical Journal, 62(6), 1659-1674.
42. Cleveland, W. S., & McGill, R. (1984). Graphical perception: Theory, experimentation, and application to the development of graphical methods. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79(387), 531-554.
43. Coller, M., & Williams, M. B. (1999). Eliciting individual discount rates. Experimental Economics, 2, 107-127.
44. Conlisk, J. (1989). Three variants on the Allais example. American Economic Review, 79(3), 392-407.
45. Conte, A., Hey, J. D., & Moffatt, P. G. (2007). Mixture models of choice under risk. Discussion Paper No. 2007/06. Department of Economics and Related Studies, University of York.
46. Cox, J. C., & Epstein, S. (1989). Preference reversals without the independence axiom. American Economic Review, 79(3), 408-426.
47. Cox, J. C., & Harrison, G. W. (2008). Risk aversion in experiments: An introduction. In: J. C. Cox & G. W. Harrison (Eds), Risk aversion in experiments (Vol. 12). Bingley, UK: Emerald, Research in Experimental Economics.
48. Cox, J. C., Roberson, B., & Smith, V. L. (1982). Theory and behavior of single object auctions. In: V. L. Smith (Ed.), Research in experimental economics (Vol. 2). Greenwich: JAI Press.
49. Cox, J. C., & Sadiraj, V. (2006). Small- and large-stakes risk aversion: Implications of concavity calibration for decision theory. Games & Economic Behavior, 56, 45-60.
50. Cox, J. C., & Sadiraj, V. (2008). Risky decisions in the large and in the small: Theory and experiment. In: J. Cox & G. W. Harrison (Eds), Risk aversion in experiments (Vol. 12). Bingley, UK: Emerald, Research in Experimental Economics.
51. Cox, J. C., Smith, V. L., & Walker, J. M. (1985). Experimental development of sealed-bid auction theory: Calibrating controls for risk aversion. American Economic Review (Papers & Proceedings), 75, 160-165.
52. Cox, J. C., Smith, V. L., & Walker, J. M. (1988). Theory and individual behavior of first-price auctions. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, 61-99.
53. Cubitt, R. P., Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (1988a). Dynamic choice and the common ratio effect: An experimental investigation. Economic Journal, 108, 1362-1380.
54. Cubitt, R. P., Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (1988b). On the validity of the random lottery incentive system. Experimental Economics, 1(2), 115-131.
55. Dave, C., Eckel, C., Johnson, C., & Rojas, C. (2007). On the heterogeneity, stability and validity of risk preference measures. Unpublished manuscript. Department of Economics, University of Texas at Dallas.
56. Diggle, P., & Kenward, M. G. (1994). Informative drop-out in longitudinal data analysis. Applied Statistics, 43(1) 49-93.
57. Dohmen, T., & Falk, A. (2006). Performance pay and multi-dimensional sorting: Productivity, preferences and gender. Discussion Paper #2001. Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Bonn, Germany.
58. Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2000). Volunteers and pseudo-volunteers: The effect of recruitment method in dictator experiments. Experimental Economics, 3, 07-120.
59. Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2002). Sex differences and statistical stereotyping in attitudes toward financial risk. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23(4), 281-295.
60. Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2008). Forecasting risk attitudes: An experimental study of actual and forecast risk attitudes of women and men. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, forthcoming.
61. Eeckhoudt, L., Gollier, C., & Schlesinger, H. (1996). Changes in background risk and risk-taking behavior. Econometrica, 64(3), 683-689.
62. Ehrhart, K.-M., & Keser, C. (1999). Mobility and cooperation: On the run. Working Paper 99s-24. CIRANO, University of Montreal.
63. Engle-Warnick, J., Escobal, J., & Laszlo, S. (2006). The effect of an additional alternative on measured risk preferences in a laboratory experiment in Peru. Working Paper 2006s-06. CIRANO, Montreal.
64. Ertan, A., Page, T., & Putterman, L. (2005). Can endogenonsly chosen institutions mitigate the free-rider problem and reduce perverse punishment! Working Paper 2005-13. Department of Economics, Brown University.
65. Falk, A., Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2005). Driving forces behind informal sanctions. Econometrica, 73(6), 2017-2030.
66. Farquhar, P. H. (1984). Utility assessment methods. Management Science, 50(11), 1283-1300.
67. Fehr, E., & Goette, L. (2007). Do workers work more if wages are high? Evidence from a randomized field experiment. American Economic Review, 97(1), 298-317.
68. Fennema, H., & van Assen, M. (1999). Measuring the utility of losses by means of the trade off method. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 77(3), 277-295.
69. Finney, M. A. (1998). FARSITE: Fire Area Simulator - Model Development and Evaluation, Research Paper RMRS-RP-4. Rocky Mountain Research Station, Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture.
70. Fiore, S. M., Harrison, G. W., Hughes, C. E., & Rutström, E. E. (2007). Virtual experiments and environmental policy. Working Paper 07-01. Department of Economics, College of Business Administration, University of Central Florida.
71. Fishburn, P. C. (1967). Methods of estimating additive utilities. Management Science, 13(7), 435-453.
72. Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., & O'Donoghuc, T. (2002). Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. Journal of Economic. Literature, XL, 351-401.
73. Gegax, D., Gerking, S., & Schulze, W. (1991). Perceived risk and the marginal value of safety. Review of Economics and Statistics, 73, 589-596.
74. Gerking, S., de Haan, M., & Schulze, W. (1988). The marginal value of job safety: A contingent value study. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, 185-199.
75. Gneezy, U., Kapteyn, A., & Potters, J. (2003). Evaluation periods and asset prices in a market experiment. Journal of Finance, 58, 821-838.
76. Gneezy, U., & Potters, J. (1997). An experiment on risk taking and evaluation periods. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 631-645.
77. Gollier, C. (2001). The economics of risk and time. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
78. Gollier, C., & Pratt, J. W. (1996). Risk vulnerability and the tempering effect of background risk. Econometrica, 64(5), 1109-1123.
79. Gonzalez, R., & Wu, G. (1999). On the shape of the probability weighting function. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 129-166.
80. Gould, W., Pitblado, J., & Sribney, W. (2006). Maximum likelihood estimation with Stata (3rd ed.). College Station, TX: Stata Press.
81. Grether, D. M., & Plott, C. R. (1979). Economic theory of choice and the preference reversal phenomenon. American Economic Review, 69, 623-648.
82. Gürerk, Ö., Irlen busch, B., & Rockenbach, B. (2006). The competitive advantage of sanctioning institutions. Science, 312, 108-111.
83. Haigh, M. S., & List, J. A. (2005). Do professional traders exhibit myopic loss aversion? An experimental analysis. Journal of Finance, 60(1), 523-534.
84. Harbaugh, W. T., Krause, K., & Vesterlund, L. (2002). Risk attitudes of children and adults: Choices over small and large probability gains and losses. Experimental Economics, 5, 53-84.
85. Harless, D. W. (1992). Predictions about indifference curves inside the unit triangle: A test of variants of expected utility theory. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 18, 391-414.
86. Harless, D. W., & Camerer, C. F. (1994). The predictive utility of generalized expected utility theories. Econometrica, 62(6), 1251-1289.
87. Harrison, G. W. (1986). An experimental test for risk aversion. Economics Letters, 21(1), 7-11.
88. Harrison, G. W. (1989). Theory and misbehavior of first-price auctions. American Economic Review, 79, 749-762.
89. Harrison, G. W. (1990). Risk attitudes in first-price auction experiments: A Bayesian analysis. Review of Economics and Statistics, 72, 541-546.
90. Harrison, G. W. (1992). Theory and misbehavior of first-price auctions: Reply. American Economic Review, 82, 1426-1443.
91. Harrison, G. W. (2006a). Experimental evidence on alternative environmental valuation methods. Environmental and Resource Economics, 34, 125-162.
92. Harrison, G. W. (2006b). Making choice studies incentive compatible. In: B. Kanninen (Ed.), Valuing environmental amenities using stated choice studies: A common sense guide to theory and practice (pp. 65-108). Boston: Kluwer.
93. Harrison, G. W. (2006c). Maximum likelihood estimation of utility functions using Stata. Working Paper 06-12. Department of Economics, College of Business Administration, University of Central Florida.
94. Harrison, G. W. (2007). Hypothetical bias over uncertain outcomes. In: J. A. List (Ed.), Using experimental methods in environmental and resource economics. Northampton, MA: Elgar.
95. Harrison, G. W., Johnson, E., McInnes, M. M., & Rutström, E. E. (2005a). Temporal stability of estimates of risk aversion. Applied Financial Economics Letters, 1, 31-35.
96. Harrison, G. W., Johnson, E., McInnes, M. M., & Rutström, E. E. (2005b). Risk aversion and incentive effects: Comment. American Economic Review, 95(3), 897-901.
97. Harrison, G. W., Johnson, E., McInnes, M. M., & Rutström, E. E. (2007a). Measurement with experimental controls. In: M. Boumans (Ed.), Measurement in economics: A handbook, San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
98. Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutström, E. E. (2005c). Risk attitudes, randomization to treatment, and self-selection into experiments. Working Paper 05-01. Department of Economics, College of Business Administration, University of Central Florida; Journal of Economic Behaviour & Organization, forthcoming.
99. Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutström, E. E. (2007b). Estimating risk attitudes in Denmark: A field experiment. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 109(2), 341-368.
100. Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., Rutström, E. E., & Sullivan, M. B. (2005d). Eliciting risk and time preferences using field experiments: Some methodological issues. In: J. Carpenter, G. W. Harrison & J. A. List (Eds), Field experiments in economics (Vol. 10). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Research in Experimental Economics.
101. Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Williams, M. B. (2002). Estimating individual discount rates for Denmark: A field experiment. American Economic Review, 92(5), 1606-1617.
102. Harrison, G. W., & List, J. A. (2004). Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature, 42(4), 1013-1059.
103. Harrison, G. W., List, J. A., & Towe, C. (2007c). Naturally occurring preferences and exogenous laboratory experiments: A case study of risk aversion. Econometric, 75(2), 433-458.
104. Harrison, G. W., List, J. A., & Tra, C. (2005e). Statistical characterization of heterogeneity in experiments. Working Paper 05-10. Department of Economics, College of Business Administration, University of Central Florida.
105. Harrison, G. W., & Rutström, E. E. (2005). Expected utility theory and prospect theory: One wedding and a decent funeral. Working Paper 05-18. Department of Economics, College of Business Administration, University of Central Florida; Experimental Economics, forthcoming.
106. Harrison, G. W., & Rutström, E. E. (2008). Experimental evidence on the existence of hypothetical bias in value elicitation methods. In: C. R. Plott, V. L. Smith (Eds), Handbook of experimental economics results. North-Holland: Amsterdam, forthcoming.
107. Harstad, R. M. (2000). Dominant strategy adoption and bidders' experience with pricing rules. Experimental Economics, 3(3), 261-280.
108. Heckman, J. J., Robb, R., Heckman, J., & Singer, B. (Eds). (1985). Longitudinal analysis of labor market data. New York: Cambridge University Press.
109. Heckman, J. J., & Smith, J. A. (1995). Assessing the case for social experiments. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(2), 85-110.
110. Heinemann, F. (2008). Measuring risk aversion and the wealth effect. In: J. Cox & G. W. Harrison (Eds), Risk aversion in experiments (Vol. 12). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Research in Experimental Economics.
111. Hershey, J. C., Kunreuther, H. C., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1982). Sources of bias in assessment procedures for utility functions. Management Science, 25(8), 936-954.
112. Hershey, J. C., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1985). Probability versus certainty equivalence methods in utility measurement: Are they equivalent? Management Science, 31(10), 1213-1231.
113. Hey, J. D. (1995). Experimental investigations of errors in decision making under risk. European Economic Review, 39, 633-640.
114. Hey, J. D. (2001). Does repetition improve consistency? Experimental Economics, 4, 5-54.
115. Hey, J. D. (2002). Experimental economics and the theory of decision making under uncertainty. Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance Theory, 27(1), 5-21.
116. Hey, J. D., & Lee, J. (2005a). Do subjects remember the past? Applied Economics, 37, 9-18.
117. Hey, J. D., & Lee, J. (2005b). Do subjects separate (or are they sophisticated)? Experimental Economics, 8, 233-265.
118. Hey, J. D., & Orme, C. (1994). Investigating generalizations of expected utility theory using experimental data. Econometrica, 62(6), 1291-1326.
119. Hirshleifer, J., & Riley, J. G. (1992). The analytics of uncertainty and information. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
120. Holt, C. A., & Laury, S. K. (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. American Economic Review, 92(5), 1644-1655.
121. Holt, C. A., & Laury, S. K. (2005). Risk aversion and incentive effects: New data without order effects. American Economic Review, 95(3), 902-912.
122. Horowitz, J. K. (1992). A test of intertemporal consistency. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 17, 171-182.
123. Hotz, V. J. (1992). Designing an evaluation of JTPA. In: C. Manski & I, Garflnkel (Eds), Evaluating welfare and training programs. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
124. Isaac, R. M., & James, D. (2000). Just who are you calling risk averse? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 20(2), 177-187.
125. James, D. (2007). Stability of risk preference parameter estimates within the Becker-DeOroot-Marschak procedure. Experimental Economics, 10, 123-141.
126. Kachelmcier, S. J., & Shehata, M. (1992). Examining risk preferences under high monetary incentives: Experimental evidence from the People's Republic of China. American Economic Review, 82(5), 1120-1141.
127. Kachelmeier, S. J., & Shehata, M. (1994). Examining risk preferences under high monetary incentives: Reply. American Economic Review, 84(4), 1104.
128. Kagel, J. H. (1995). Auctions: A survey of experimental research. In: J. H. Kagel & A. E. Roth (Eds), The handbook of experimental economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
129. Kagel, J. H., & Levin, D. (2002). Common value auctions and the winner's curse. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
130. Kagel, J. H., MacDonald, D. N., & Battalio, R. C. (1990). Tests of 'Fanning Out' of indifference curves: Results from animal and human experiments. American Economic Review, 80(4), 912-921.
131. Kahneman, D., & Lovallo, D. (1993). Timid choices and bold forecasts: A cognitive perspective on risk taking. Management Science, 39(1), 17-31.
132. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291.
133. Keller, L. R., & Strazzera, E. (2002). Examining predictive accuracy among discounting models. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 24(2), 143-160.
134. Kent, S. (1964). Words of estimated probability. Studies in Intelligence, 8, 49-65.
135. Klibanoff, P., Marinacci, M., & Mukerji, S. (2005). A smooth model of decision making under ambiguity. Econometrica, 73(6), 1849-1892.
136. Köbberling, V., & Wakker, P. P. (2005). An index of loss aversion. Journal of Economic. Theory, 122, 119-131.
137. Koszegi, B., & Rabin, M. (2006). A model of reference-dependent preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(4), 1133-1165.
138. Köszegi, B., & Rabin, M. (2007). Reference-dependent risk attitudes. American Economic Review, 97(4), 1047-1073.
139. Kramer, M., & Shapiro, S. (1984). Scientific challenges in the application of randomized trials. Journal of the American Medical Association, 252, 2739-2745.
140. Kreps, D. M., & Porteus, E. L. (1978). Temporal resolution of uncertainty and dynamic choice theory. Econometrica, 46(1), 185-200.
141. Krupnick, A., Alberini, A., Cropper, M., Simon, N., O'Brien, B., Goeree, R., & Heintzelman, M. (2002). Age, health and the willingness to pay for mortality risk reductions: A contingent valuation survey of Ontario residents. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 24(2), 161-186.
142. Kuilen, G., Wakker, P. P., & Zou, L. (2007). A midpoint technique for easily measuring prospect theory's probability weighting. Working Paper. Econometric Institute, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
143. Laury, S. K., & Holt, C. A. (2008). Further reflections on prospect theory. In: J. Cox & G. W. Harrison (Eds), Risk aversion in experiments (Vol. 12). Bingley, UK: Emerald, Research in Experimental Economics.
144. Lazear, E. P., Malmcndicr, U., & Weber, R. A. (2006). Sorting in experiments with application to social preferences. Working Paper #12041. National Bureau of Economic Research.
145. Liang, K.-Y., & Zeger, S. L. (1986). Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models, Biometrika, 73, 13-22.
146. List, J. A. (2003). Does market experience eliminate market anomalies? Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 41-71.
147. Loomes, O. (1988). Different experimental procedures for obtaining valuations of risky actions: Implications for utility theory. Theory and Decision, 25, 1-23.
148. Loonies, G., Moffatt, P. G., & Sugden, R. (2002). A microeconomctric test of alternative stochastic theories of risky choice. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 24(2), 103-130.
149. Loomes, G., Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (1991). Observing violations of transitivity by experimental methods. Economeirica, 59(2), 425-439.
150. Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1995). Incorporating a stochastic clement into decision theories. European Economic. Review, 39, 641-648.
151. Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1998). Testing different stochastic specifications of risky choice. Economica, 65, 581-598.
152. Lopes, L. L. (1984). Risk and distributional inequality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10(4), 465-484.
153. Luce, R. D. (1959). Individual choice behavior. New York: Wiley.
154. Luce, R. D., & Fishburn, P. C. (1991). Rank and sign-dependent linear utility models for finite first-order gambles. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 4, 29-59.
155. Lusk, J. L., & Coble, K. H. (2005). Risk perceptions, risk preference, and acceptance of risky food. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 87(2), 393-404.
156. Lusk, J. L., & Coble, K. H. (2008). Risk aversion in the presence of background risk: Evidence from the lab. In: J. C. Cox & G. W. Harrison (Eds), Risk aversion in experiments (Vol. 12). Bingley, UK: Emerald, Research in Experimental Economics.
157. Mankiw, N. G., & Zeldes, S. P. (1991). The consumption of stockholders and non-stockholders, Journal of Financial Economics, 29(1), 97-112.
158. McFadden, D. (2001). Economic choices. American Economic Review, 91(3), 351-378.
159. McKee, M. (1989). Intra-experimental income effects and risk aversion. Economics Letters, 30, 109-115.
160. Miller, L., Meyer, D. E., & Lanzetta, J. T. (1969). Choice among equal expected value alternatives: Sequential effects of winning probability level on risk preferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 79(3), 419-423.
161. Millner, E. L., Pratt, M. D., & Reilly, R. J. (1988), A reexamination of Harrison's experimental test for risk aversion. Economics Letters, 27, 317-319.
162. Murnighan, J. K., Roth, A. E., & Shoumaker, F. (1987). Risk aversion and bargaining: Some preliminary results. European Economic Review, 31, 265-271.
163. Murnighan, J. K., Roth, A. E., & Shoumaker, F. (1988). Risk aversion in bargaining: An experimental study. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1(1), 101-124.
164. Nau, R. F. (2006). Uncertainty aversion with second-order utilities and probabilities. Management Science, 52(1), 136-145.
165. Novemsky, N., & Kahneman, D. (2005a), The boundaries of loss aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, XLII, 119-128.
166. Novemsky, N., & Kahneman, D. (2005b). How do intentions affect loss aversion? Journal of Marketing Research, XLII, 139-140.
167. Ochs, J., & Roth, A. E. (1989). An experimental study of sequential bargaining. American Economic Review, 79(3), 355-384.
168. Ortona, G. (1994). Examining risk preferences under high monetary incentives: Comment. American Economic Review, 84(4), 1104.
169. Paarsch, H. J., & Hong, H. (2006). An introduction to the structural econometrics of auction data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
170. Page, T., Putterman, L., & Unel, B. (2005). Voluntary association in public goods experiments: Reciprocity, mimicry, and efficiency. Economic Journal, 115, 1037-1058.
171. Palfrey, T. R., & Pevnitskaya, S. (2008). Endogenous entry and self-selection in private value auctions: An experimental study. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 66, forthcoming.
172. Papke, L. E., & Wooldridge, J. M. (1996). Econometric methods for fractional response variables with an application to 401(K) plan participation rates. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 11, 619-632.
173. Philipson, T., & Hedges, L. V. (1998). Subject evaluation in social experiments. Econometrica, 66(2), 381-408.
174. Plott, C. R., & Zeiler, K. (2005). The willingness to pay-willingness to accept gap, the 'Endowment Effect," subject misconceptions, and experimental procedures for eliciting valuations. American Economic Review, 95(3), 530-545.
175. Prelec, D. (1998). The probability weighting function. Econometrica, 66, 497-527.
176. Quiggin, J. (1982). A theory of anticipated utility. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 3(4), 323-343.
177. Quiggin, J. (1993). Generalized expected utility theory: The rank-dependent model. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.
178. Rabe-Hesketh, S., & Everitt, B. (2004). A handbook of statistical analyses using Stata (3rd ed.). New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
179. Rabin, M. (2000). Risk aversion and expected utility theory: A calibration theorem. Econometrica, 68, 1281-1292.
180. Reilly, R. J. (1982). Preference reversal: Further evidence and some suggested modifications in experimental design. American Economic Review, 72, 576-584.
181. Rieger, M. O., & Wang, M. (2006). Cumulative prospect theory and the St. Petersburg paradox. Economic Theory, 28, 665-679.
182. Rogers, W. H. (1993). Regression standard errors in clustered samples. Stata Technical Bulletin, 13, 19-23.
183. Roth, A. E., & Malouf, M. W. K. (1979). Game-theoretic models and the role of information in bargaining. Psychological Review, 86, 574-594.
184. Rutström, E. E. (1998). Home-grown values and the design of incentive compatible auctions. International Journal of Game Theory, 27(3), 427-441.
185. Saha, A. (1993). Expo-power utility: A flexible form for absolute and relative risk aversion. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 75(4), 905-913.
186. Savage, L. J. (1972). The foundations of statistics (2nd ed.). New York: Dover.
187. Schmidt, U., Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (2005). Explaining preference reversal with third-generation prospect theory. Working Paper. School of Economic and Social Science, University of East Anglia.
188. Schubert, R., Brown, M., Gysler, M., & Brachinger, H. W. (1999). Financial decision-making: Are women really more risk-averse? American Economic Review (Papers & Proceedings), 89(2), 381-385.
189. Smith, V. L. (1982). Microeconomic systems as an experimental science. American Economic Review, 72(5), 923-955.
190. Smith, V. L. (2003). Constructivist and ecological rationality in economics. American Economic Review, 93(3), 465-508.
191. Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (1989). Violations of the independence axiom in common ratio problems: An experimental test of some competing hypotheses. Annals of Operational Research, 19, 79-102.
192. Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (1991). Does the random-lottery incentive system elicit true preferences? An experimental investigation. American Economic Review, 81, 971-978.
193. StataCorp. (2007). Stata statistical software: Release 10. College Station, TX: Stata Corporation.
194. Stigler, G. J., & Becker, G. S. (1977). De gustibus non est disputandum. American Economic Review, 67(2), 76-90.
195. Sutter, M., Haigner, S., & Kocher, M. (2006). Choosing the stick or the carrot? Endogenous Institutional choice in social dilemma situations. Discussion Paper No. 5497. Centre for Economic Policy Research, London.
196. Tanaka, T., Camerer, C. F., & Nguyen, Q. (2007). Risk and time preferences: Experimental and household survey data from Vietnam. Working Paper. California Institute of Technology.
197. Thaler, R. H., Tversky, A., Kahneman, D., & Schwartz, A. (1997). The effect of myopia and loss aversion on risk taking: An experimental test. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 647-661.
198. Train, K. E. (2003). Discrete choice methods with simulation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
199. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representations of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297-323.
200. United States Environmental Protection Agency. (1997). The benefits and costs of the clean air act: 1970 to 1990. Washington, DC: Office of Air and Radiation, US EPA.
201. Vickrey, W. S. (1961). Counterspeculation, auctions and competitive sealed tenders. Journal of Finance, 16, 8-37.
202. von Winterfeldt, D., & Edwards, W. (1986). Decision analysis and behavioral research. New York: Cambridge University Press.
203. Vuong, Q. H. (1989). Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-nested hypotheses. Econometrica, 57(2), 307-333.
204. Wakker, P. P. (1989). Transforming probabilities without violating stochastic dominance. In: E. Roskam (Ed.), Mathematical Psychology in Progress. Berlin: Springer.
205. Wakker, P. P., & Deneffe, D. (1996). Eliciting von Neumann-Morgenstern utilities when probabilities are distorted or unknown. Management Science, 42, 1131-1150.
206. Wakker, P. P., Erev, I., & Weber, E. U. (1994). Comonotonic independence: The critical test between classical and rank-dependent utility theories. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 9, 195-230.
207. Wilcox, N. T. (2008a). Stochastic models for binary discrete choice under risk: A critical primer and econometric comparison. In: J. Cox & G. W. Harrison (Eds), Risk aversion in experiments (Vol. 12). Bingley, UK: Emerald, Research in Experimental Economics.
208. Wilcox, N. T. (2008b). 'Stochastically more risk averse:' A contextual theory of stochastic discrete choice under risk. Journal of Econometrics, 142, forthcoming.
209. Williams, R. (2000). A note on robust variance estimation for cluster-correlated. Biometrics, 56, 645-646.
210. Wooldridge, J. (2003). Cluster-sample methods in applied econometrics. American Economic Review (Papers & Proceedings), 93, 133-138.
211. Yaari, M. E. (1987). The dual theory of choice under risk. Econometrica, 55(1), 95-115.