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

Volumn 42, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 61-83

  Etchart Vincent, Nathalie ^a   l'Haridon, Olivier ^b  

^a CNRS   (France)

^b INSTITUT UNIVERSITAIRE DE FRANCE   (France)

Author keywords

Decision making; Incentives; Losses; Risk; Utility measurement

Indexed keywords

EID: 78650993579     PISSN: 08955646     EISSN: 15730476     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11166-010-9110-0     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Abdellaoui, M. (2000). Parameter-free elicitation of utilities and probability weighting functions. Management Science, 46, 1497-1512.
2. Abdellaoui, M., Bleichrodt, H., & Paraschiv, C. (2007). Measuring loss aversion under prospect theory: a parameter-free approach. Management Science, 53, 1659-1674.
3. Abdellaoui, M., Bleichrodt, H., & l'Haridon, O. (2008). A tractable method to measure utility and loss aversion in prospect theory. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 36, 245-266.
4. Abdellaoui, M., Baillon, A., Placido, L., & Wakker P. P. (2010a). The rich domain of uncertainty. American Economic Review, forthcoming.
5. Abdellaoui, M., l'Haridon, O., & Zank, H. (2010). Separating curvature and elevation: a parametric weighting function. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 41, 39-65.
6. Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk costs. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35, 124-140.
7. Arkes, H. R., Herren, L. T., & Isen, A. M. (1988). The role of potential loss in the influence of affect on risk-taking behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 42, 181-193.
8. Baltussen, G., Post, T., van den Assem, M., & Wakker, P. (2008). The effects of random lottery incentive schemes: Evidence from a dynamic risky choice experiment. Working Paper, Erasmus University Rotterdam.
9. Bardsley, N. (2000). Control without deception: individual behaviour in free-riding experiments revisited. Experimental Economics, 3, 215-240.
10. Battalio, R. C., Kagel, J., & Jiranyakul, K. (1990). Testing between alternative models of choice under uncertainty: some initial results. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 3(1), 25-50.
11. Beattie, J., & Loomes, G. (1997). The impact of incentives upon risky choice experiments. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 14, 155-168.
12. Becker, G. M., DeGroot, M. H., & Marschak, J. (1964). Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behavioral Science, 9, 226-232.
13. Birnbaum, M. H. (1999). How to show that 9 > 221: collect judgments in a between-subjects design. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 243-249.
14. Bosch-Domenech, A., & Silvestre, J. (2010). Averting risk in the face of large losses: Bernoulli vs. Tversky and Kahneman. Economics Letters, 107(2), 180-182.
15. Bostic, R., Herrnstein, R. J., & Luce, R. D. (1990). The effect on the preference reversal phenomenon of using choice indifferences. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 13, 193-212.
16. Bruhin, A., Fehr-Duda, H., & Epper, T. (2010). Risk and rationality: uncovering heterogeneity in probability distortion. Econometrica, 78(4), 1375-1412.
17. Camerer, C. F., & Hogarth, R. M. (1999). The effects of financial incentives in experiments: a review and capital-labor-production framework. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19(1), 7-42.
18. Chateauneuf, A., & Cohen, M. (1994). Risk seeking with diminishing marginal utility in a non-expected utility model. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 9, 77-91.
19. Clark, J. (2002). House money effects in public good experiments. Experimental Economics, 5(3), 223-231.
20. Cox, J. C., & Grether, D. M. (1996). The preference reversal phenomenon: response mode, markets and incentives. Economic Theory, 7(3), 381-405.
21. Cubitt, R. P., Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (1998). On the validity of the random lottery incentive system. Experimental Economics, 1, 115-131.
22. Davis, D. D., & Holt, C. A. (1993). Experimental economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
23. Etchart-Vincent, N. (2004). Is probability weighting sensitive to the magnitude of consequences? An experimental investigation on losses. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 28(3), 217-235.
24. Etchart-Vincent, N. (2009). Probability weighting and the 'level' and 'spacing' of outcomes: an experimental study over losses. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 39(1), 45-63.
25. Fennema, H., & van Assen, M. (1999). Measuring the utility of losses by means of the trade-off method. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 17, 277-295.
26. Gärling, T., & Romanus, J. (1997). Integration and segregation of prior outcomes in risky decisions. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 38(4), 289-296.
27. Gibbons, R. (1997). Incentives and careers in organizations. In D. Kreps & K. Wallis (Eds.), Advances in economic theory and econometrics, vol. II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28. Goldstein, W., & Einhorn, H. (1987). Expression theory and the preference reversal phenomena. Psychological Review, 94, 236-254.
29. Harrison, G. W. (1994). Expected utility theory and the experimentalists. Empirical Economics, 19, 223-253.
30. Harrison, G. W. (2006). Hypothetical bias over uncertain outcomes. In J. A. List (Ed.), Using experimental methods in environmental and resource economics. Northampton: Elgar.
31. Harrison, G. W. (2007). House money effects in public good experiments: comment. Experimental Economics, 10(4), 429-437.
32. Harrison, G. W., & Rutström, E. E. (2008). Risk aversion in the laboratory. In J. C. Cox & G. W. Harrison (Eds.), Research in experimental economics, 12. Bingley: Emerald.
33. Harrison, G. W., Johnson, E., McInnes, M. M., & Rutström, E. E. (2005). Risk aversion and incentive effects: comment. The American Economic Review, 95(3), 897-901.
34. Hertwig, R., & Ortmann, A. (2001). Experimental practices in economics: a methodological challenge for psychologists? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 383-451.
35. Hertwig, R., & Ortmann, A. (2002). Economists' and psychologists' experimental practices: How they differ, why they differ, and how they could converge. In I. Brocas & J. D. Carillo (Eds.), The psychology of economic decisions. New York: Oxford University Press.
36. Holt, C. A. (1986). Preference reversals and the independence axiom. The American Economic Review, 76, 508-515.
37. Holt, C. A., & Laury, S. K. (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. The American Economic Review, 92, 1644-1655.
38. Isen, A. M., & Patrick, R. (1983). The effect of positive feelings and risk taking: when the chips are down. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 31, 194-202.
39. Keasey, K., & Moon, P. (1996). Gambling with the house money in capital expenditure decisions: an experimental analysis. Economics Letters, 50, 105-110.
40. Keren, G., & Raaijmakers, J. (1988). On between-subjects versus within-subjects comparisons in testing utility theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41, 233-247.
41. Lazear, E. (2000). Performance, pay and productivity. The American Economic Review, 90(5), 1346-1361.
42. Lee, J. (2008). The effect of the background risk in a simple chance improving model. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 36, 19-41.
43. Mason, C. F., Shogren, J. F., Settle, C., & List, J. A. (2005). Investigating risky choices over losses using experimental data. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 31(2), 187-215.
44. Read, D. (2005). Monetary incentives, what are they good for? Journal of Economic Methodology, 12(2), 265-276.
45. Romanus, J., Hassing, L., & Gärling, T. (1996). A loss-sensitivity explanation of integration of prior outcomes in risky decisions. Acta Psychologica, 93, 173-183.
46. Schoemaker, P. (1990). Are risk-attitudes related across domains and response modes? Management Science, 36, 1451-1463.
47. Smith, V. L. (1976). Experimental economics induced value theory. The American Economic Review, 66, 274-279.
48. Smith, V. L., & Levin, I. P. (1996). Need for cognition and choice framing effects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 9, 283-290.
49. Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (1991). Does the random-lottery incentive system elicit true preferences? An experimental investigation. The American Economic Review, 81(4), 971-978.
50. Stott, H. P. (2006). Cumulative prospect theory's functional menagerie. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 32, 101-130.
51. Thaler, R. H., & Johnson, E. J. (1990). Gambling with the house money and trying to break even: the effects of prior outcomes on risky choice. Management Science, 36(6), 643-660.
52. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297-323.
53. Weber, M., & Zuchel, H. (2001). How do prior outcomes affect risk attitude? Comparing escalation of commitment and the house-money effect. Decision Analysis, 2(1), 30-43.