How certain is the uncertainty effect?

Experimental Economics

Volumn 12, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 473-487

  Rydval, Ondřej ^a,b   Ortmann, Andreas ^c   Prokosheva, Sasha ^d   Hertwig, Ralph ^e  

^a Growth and Public Policy   (Germany)

^b CERGE EI   (Czech Republic)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

^d UNIVERSIDAD CARLOS III DE MADRID   (Spain)

^e UNIVERSITY OF BASEL   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Decision making under risk; Experiments; Framing; Task ambiguity

Indexed keywords

EID: 70350728649     PISSN: 13864157     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10683-009-9224-x     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Andersen, S., Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutstrom, E. E. (2007). Valuation using multiple price list formats. Applied Economics, 39(6), 675-682.
2. Gigerenzer, G., Hell, W., & Blank, H. (1988). Presentation and content: The use of base rates as a continuous variable. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14(3), 513-525.
3. Gneezy, U., List, J. A., & Wu, G. (2006). The uncertainty effect: When a risky prospect is valued less than its worst outcome. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(4), 1283-1309.
4. Greiner, B. (2004). The online recruitment system ORSEE 2.0-A guide for the organization of experiments in economics. University of Cologne, Working Paper Series in Economics 10.
5. Grether, D. M., & Plott, C. R. (1979). Economic theory of choice and the preference reversal phenomenon. American Economic Review, 69(4), 623-638.
6. Harrison, G. W. (1992). Theory and misbehavior of first-price auctions: Reply. American Economic Review, 82(5), 1426-1443.
7. Harrison, G. W., & Rutstroem, 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 (Vol. 1). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
8. Harrison, G. W., List, J. A., & Towe, C. (2007). Naturally occurring preferences and exogenous laboratory experiments: A case study of risk aversion. Econometrica, 75(2), 433-458.
9. Hertwig, R., & Ortmann, A. (2001). Experimental practices in economics: A methodological challenge for psychologists? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(3), 383-402.
10. Hertwig, R., Barron, G., Weber, E. U., & Erev, I. (2004). Decisions from experience and the effect of rare events in risky choice. Psychological Science, 15(8), 534-539.
11. Horowitz, J. K. (2006). The Becker-DeGroot-Marschak mechanism is not necessarily incentive compatible, even for non-random goods. Economics Letters, 93(1), 6-11.
12. Karni, E., & Safra, Z. (1987). Preference reversals and the observability of preferences by experimental methods. Econometrica, 55(3), 675-685.
13. Keren, G., & Willemsen, M. C. (2009). Decision anomalies, experimenter assumptions, and participants' comprehension: Re-evaluating the uncertainty effect. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 22(3), 301-317.
14. Koehler, J. J. (1996). The base rate fallacy reconsidered: Descriptive, normative, and methodological challenges. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19(1), 1-53.
15. Ortmann, A., Prokosheva, S., Rydval, O., & Hertwig, R. (2007). Valuing a risky prospect less than its worst outcome: Uncertainty effect or task ambiguity? Jena Economic Research Paper 2007-038 and CERGE-EI Working Paper 334.
16. Rydval, O., & Ortmann, A. (2004). How financial incentives and cognitive abilities affect task performance in laboratory settings: An illustration. Economics Letters, 85(3), 315-320.
17. Simonsohn, U. (2009). Direct risk aversion: Evidence from risky prospects valued below their worst outcome. Psychological Science, 20(6), 686-692.
18. Sonsino, D. (2008). Disappointment aversion in internet bidding-decisions. Theory and Decision, 64(2-3), 363-393.
19. Weber, E. U., Böckenholt, U., Hilton, D. J., & Wallace, B. (1993). Determinants of diagnostic hypothesis generation: Effects of information, base rates, and experience. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(5), 1151-1164.