Risk aversion in game shows

Research in Experimental Economics

Volumn 12, Issue , 2008, Pages 359-404

  Andersen, Steffen ^a   Harrison, Glenn W ^a   Lau, Morten L ^a   Elisabet Rutstrom E ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 54249140463     PISSN: 01932306     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1016/S0193-2306(08)00008-2     Document Type: Review

References (51)

1. Abdellaoui, M., Barrios, C., & Wakker, P. P. (2007). Reconciling introspective utility with revealed preference: Experimental arguments based on prospect theory. Journal of Econometrics, 138, 356-378.
2. Andersen, S., Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutström, E. E. (2006a). Dynamic, choice behavior in a natural experiment. Working Paper 06-10, Department of Economics, College of Business Administration, University of Central Florida.
3. Andersen, S., Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutström, E. E. (2006b). Dual criteria decisions, Working Paper 06-11, Department of Economics, College of Business Administration, University of Central Florida.
4. Ballinger, T. P., & Wilcox, N. T. (1997). Decisions, error and heterogeneity. Economic Journal, 107, 1090-1105.
5. Baltussen, G., Post, T., & van den Assem, M. (2006). Stakes, prior outcomes and distress in risky choice: An experimental study based on Deal or No Deal. Working Paper, Department of Finance, Erasmus School of Economics, Erasmus University.
6. Beetsma, R. M. W. J., & Schotman, P. C. (2001). Measuring risk attitudes in a natural experiment: Data from the television game show Lingo. Economic Journal, 111, 821-848.
7. Blavatskyy, P., & Pogrebna, G. (2006). Testing the predictions of decision theories in a natural experiment when half a million is at stake. Working Paper 291, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics, University of Zurich.
8. Bombardini, M., & Trebbi, F. (2005). Risk aversion and expected utility theory: A field experiment with large and small stakes. Working Paper 05-20, Department of Economics, University of British Columbia.
9. Botti, F., Conte, A., DiCagno, D., & D'Ippoliti, C. (2006). Risk attitude in real decision problems. Unpublished Manuscript, LUISS Guido Carli, Rome.
10. Campbell, J. Y., Lo, A. W., & MacKinlay, A. C. (1997). The econometrics of financial markets. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
11. Cox, J. C., & Sadiraj, V. (2006). Small- and large-stakes risk aversion: Implications of concavity calibration for decision theory. Games and Economic Behavior, 56(1), 45-60.
12. De Roos, N., & Sarafldis, Y. (2006). Decision making under risk in deal or no deal. Working Paper, School of Economics and Political Science, University of Sydney.
13. Gertner, R. (1993). Game shows and economic behavior: Risk-taking on Card Sharks. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(2), 507-521.
14. Gollier, C. (2001). The economics of risk and time. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15. Harless, D. W., & Camerer, C. F. (1994). The predictive utility of generalized expected utility theories. Econometrica, 62(6), 1251-1289.
16. Harrison, G. W., Johnson, E., Mclnnes, M. M., & Rutström, E. E. (2005). Risk aversion and incentive effects: Comment. American Economic Review, 95(3), 897-901.
17. Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutström, E. E. (2007). Estimating risk attitudes in Denmark: A field experiment. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 109(2), 341-368.
18. Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., Rutström, E. E., & Sullivan, M. B. (2005). 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.
19. Harrison, G. W., & List, J. A. (2004). Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature, 42(4), 1013-1059.
20. 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.
21. Harrison, G. W., & Rutström, E. E. (2008). Risk aversion in the Laboratory. In: J. C. Cox & G. W. Harrison (Eds), Risk aversion in experiments (Vol. 12). Bingley, UK: Emerald, Research in Experimental Economics.
22. Hartley, R., Lanot, G., & Walker, I. (2005). Who really wants to be a Millionaire? Estimates of risk aversion from gameshow data. Working Paper, Department of Economics, University of Warwick.
23. Healy, P., & Noussair, C. (2004). Bidding behavior in the Price Is Right Game: An experimental study. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 54, 231-247.
24. Hey, J. (1995). Experimental investigations of errors in decision making under risk. European Economic Review, 39, 633-640.
25. 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.
26. Hey, J. D., & Orme, C. (1994). Investigating generalizations of expected utility theory using experimental data. Econometrica, 62(6), 1291-1326.
27. Holt, C. A., & Laury, S. K. (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. American Economic Review, 92(5), 1644-1655.
28. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291.
29. Levitt, S. D., & List, J. A. (2007). What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(2), 153-174.
30. Liang, K.-Y., & Zeger, S. L. (1986). Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika, 73, 13-22.
31. Loomes, G., Moffatt, P. G., & Sugden, R. (2002). A microeconometric test of alternative stochastic theories of risky choice. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 24(2), 103-130.
32. Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1995). Incorporating a stochastic clement into decision theories. European Economic Review, 39, 641-648.
33. Markowitz, H. (1952). The utility of wealth. Journal of Political Economy, 60, 151-158.
34. Merton, R. C. (1971). Optimum consumption and portfolio rules in a continuous-time model. Journal of Economic Theory, 3, 373-413.
35. Metrick, A. (1995). A natural experiment in 'Jeopardy!'. American Economic Review, 55(1), 240-253.
36. Mulino, D., Scheelings, R., Brooks, R., & Faff, R. (2006). An Empirical Investigation of Risk Aversion and Framing Effects in the Australian Version of Deal Or No Deal. Working Paper, Department of Economics, Monash University.
37. Nalebuff, B. (1990). Puzzles: Slot machines, zomepirac, squash, and more. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 4(1), 179-187.
38. Post, T., van den Assem, M., Baltussen, G., & Thaler, R. (2006). Deal or no deal? decision making under risk in a large-payoff game show. Working Paper, Department of Finance, Erasmus School of Economics, Erasmus University; American Economic Review, forthcoming.
39. Quiggin, J. (1982). A theory of anticipated utility. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 5(4), 323-343.
40. Quiggin, J. (1993). Generalized expected utility theory: The rank-dependent model. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.
41. Rogers, W. H. (1993). Regression standard errors in clustered samples. Stata Technical Bulletin, 13, 19-23.
42. Rothwell, G., & Rust, J. (1997). On the optimal lifetime of nuclear power plants. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 15(2), 195-208.
43. Rust, J. (1987). Optimal replacement of GMC bus engines: An empirical model of Harold Zurcher. Econometrica, 55, 999-1033.
44. Rust, J. (1994). Structural estimation of Markov decision processes. In: D. McFadden & R. Engle (Eds), Handbook of econometrics (Vol. 4). Amsterdam, NL: North-Holland.
45. Rust, J. (1997). Using randomization to break the curse of dimensionality. Econometrica, 65(3), 487-516.
46. Rust, J., & Rothwell, G. (1995). Optimal response to a shift in regulatory regime: The case of the US Nuclear Power Industry. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 10, S75-S118.
47. Tenorio, R., & Cason, T. (2002). To spin or not to spin? Natural and laboratory experiments from The Price is Right. Economic Journal, 112, 170-195.
48. Train, K. E. (2003). Discrete choice methods with simulation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
49. Vuong, Q. H. (1989). Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-nested hypotheses. Econometrica, 57(2), 307-333.
50. Williams, R. L. (2000). A note on robust variance estimation for cluster-correlated data. Biometrics, 56, 645-646.
51. Wooldridge, J. (2003). Cluster-sample methods in applied econometrics. American Economic Review (Papers and Proceedings), 93, 133-138.