September 2012, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 418-443,
Open Access This content is freely available online to anyone, anywhere at any time.
Date: 22 Oct 2011
Random incentive systems in a dynamic choice experiment
Experiments frequently use a random incentive system (RIS), where only tasks that are randomly selected at the end of the experiment are for real. The most common type pays every subject one out of her multiple tasks (within-subjects randomization). Recently, another type has become popular, where a subset of subjects is randomly selected, and only these subjects receive one real payment (between-subjects randomization). In earlier tests with simple, static tasks, RISs performed well. The present study investigates RISs in a more complex, dynamic choice experiment. We find that between-subjects randomization reduces risk aversion. While within-subjects randomization delivers unbiased measurements of risk aversion, it does not eliminate carry-over effects from previous tasks. Both types generate an increase in subjects’ error rates. These results suggest that caution is warranted when applying RISs to more complex and dynamic tasks.
Aharoni, G., & Sarig, O. H. (2008). Hot hands in basketball and equilibrium (Working paper). Available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=883324.
Allais, M. (1953). Le comportement de l’homme rationnel devant le risque: critique des postulats et axiomes de l’École Américaine. Econometrica, 21(4), 503–546. CrossRef
Ariely, D., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2003). Coherent arbitrariness: stable demand curves without stable preferences. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 73–105. CrossRef
Ariely, D., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2006). Tom Sawyer and the construction of value. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 60(1), 1–10. CrossRef
Armantier, O. (2006). Do wealth differences affect fairness considerations? International Economic Review, 47(2), 391–429. CrossRef
Beattie, J., & Loomes, G. (1997). The impact of incentives upon risky choice experiments. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 14(2), 155–168. CrossRef
Bettinger, E., & Slonim, R. (2007). Patience among children. Journal of Public Economics, 91(1–2), 343–363. CrossRef
Blavatskyy, P., & Pogrebna, G. (2008). Risk aversion when gains are likely and unlikely: evidence from a natural experiment with large stakes. Theory and Decision, 64(2–3), 395–420. CrossRef
Blavatskyy, P., & Pogrebna, G. (2010a). Models of stochastic choice and decision theories: why both are important for analyzing decisions. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 25(6), 963–986. CrossRef
Blavatskyy, P., & Pogrebna, G. (2010b). Endowment effects? ‘Even’ with half a million on the table! Theory and Decision, 68(1–2), 173–192. CrossRef
Bolle, F. (1990). High reward experiments without high expenditure for the experimenter. Journal of Economic Psychology, 11(2), 157–167. CrossRef
Brooks, R. D., Faff, R. W., Mulino, D., & Scheelings, R. (2009a). Deal or no deal, that is the question: the impact of increasing stakes and framing effects on decision-making under risk. International Review of Finance, 9(1–2), 27–50. CrossRef
Brooks, R. D., Faff, R. W., Mulino, D., & Scheelings, R. (2009b). Does risk aversion vary with decision-frame? An empirical test using recent game show data. Review of Behavioral Finance, 1(1–2), 44–61.
Camerer, C. F. (1989). An experimental test of several generalized utility theories. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2(1), 61–104. CrossRef
Camerer, C. F., & Ho, T.-H. (1994). Violations of the betweenness axiom and nonlinearity in probability. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 8(2), 167–196. CrossRef
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(1–3), 7–42. CrossRef
Carlin, P. S. (1992). Violations of the reduction and independence axioms in Allais-type and common ratio effect experiments. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 19(2), 213–235. CrossRef
Cho, Y., & Luce, R. D. (1995). Tests of hypotheses about certainty equivalents and joint receipt of gambles. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64(3), 229–248. CrossRef
Cohen, M., Jaffray, J.-Y., & Said, T. (1987). Experimental comparison of individual behavior under risk and under uncertainty for gains and for losses. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39(1), 1–22. CrossRef
Cox, J. C., & Epstein, S. (1989). Preference reversals without the independence axiom. American Economic Review, 79(3), 408–426.
Cubitt, R. P., Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (1998a). On the validity of the random lottery incentive system. Experimental Economics, 1(2), 115–131.
Cubitt, R. P., Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (1998b). Dynamic choice and the common ratio effect: an experimental investigation. Economic Journal, 108(450), 1362–1380. CrossRef
Deck, C. A., Lee, J., & Reyes, J. A. (2008). Risk attitudes in large stake gambles: evidence from a game show. Applied Economics, 40(1), 41–52. CrossRef
Gächter, S., Orzen, H., Renner, E., & Starmer, C. (2009). Are experimental economists prone to framing effects? A natural field experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 70(3), 443–446. CrossRef
Gilovich, T., Vallone, R., & Tversky, A. (1985). The hot hand in basketball: on the misperception of random sequences. Cognitive Psychology, 17(3), 295–314. CrossRef
Green, D., Jacowitz, K. E., Kahneman, D., & McFadden, D. (1998). Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods. Resource and Energy Economics, 20(2), 85–116. CrossRef
Greenwald, A. G. (1976). Within-subjects designs: to use or not to use? Psychological Bulletin, 83(2), 314–320. CrossRef
Grether, D. M., & Plott, C. R. (1979). Economic theory of choice and the preference reversal phenomenon. American Economic Review, 69(4), 623–638.
Harless, D. W., & Camerer, C. F. (1994). The predictive utility of generalized expected utility theories. Econometrica, 62(6), 1251–1289. CrossRef
Harrison, G. W. (1989). Theory and misbehavior of first-price auctions. American Economic Review, 79(4), 749–762.
Harrison, G. W. (1994). Expected utility theory and the experimentalists. Empirical Economics, 19(2), 223–253. CrossRef
Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutström, E. E. (2007). Estimating risk attitudes in Denmark: a field experiment. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 109(2), 341–368. CrossRef
Hey, J. D. (1995). Experimental investigations of errors in decision making under risk. European Economic Review, 39(3–4), 633–640. CrossRef
Hey, J. D., & Lee, J. (2005a). Do subjects remember the past? Applied Economics, 37(1), 9–18. CrossRef
Hey, J. D., & Lee, J. (2005b). Do subjects separate (or are they sophisticated)? Experimental Economics, 8(3), 233–265. CrossRef
Hey, J. D., & Orme, C. (1994). Investigating generalizations of expected utility theory using experimental data. Econometrica, 62(6), 1291–1326. CrossRef
Holt, C. A. (1986). Preference reversals and the independence axiom. American Economic Review, 76(3), 508–515.
Johnson, E. J., & Schkade, D. A. (1989). Bias in utility assessments: further evidence and explanations. Management Science, 35(4), 406–424. CrossRef
Kahneman, D. (2002). Maps of bounded rationality: a perspective on intuitive judgment and choice. Prize lecture for the Nobel Foundation, 8 December, 2002, Stockholm, Sweden.
Kameda, T., & Davis, J. H. (1990). The function of the reference point in individual and group risk decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46(1), 55–76. CrossRef
Keren, G. B., & Raaijmakers, J. G. W. (1988). On between-subjects versus within-subjects comparisons in testing utility theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41(2), 233–247. CrossRef
Kühberger, A. (1998). The influence of framing on risky decisions: a meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75(1), 23–55. CrossRef
Kühberger, A., Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., & Perner, J. (1999). The effects of framing, reflection, probability, and payoff on risk preference in choice tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78(3), 204–231. CrossRef
Kühberger, A., Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., & Perner, J. (2002). Framing decisions: hypothetical and real. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89(2), 1162–1175. CrossRef
Langer, T., & Weber, M. (2008). Does commitment or feedback influence myopic loss aversion? An experimental analysis. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 67(3–4), 810–819. CrossRef
Lee, J. (2008). The effect of the background risk in a simple chance improving decision model. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 36(1), 19–41. CrossRef
Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1995). Incorporating a stochastic element into decision theories. European Economic Review, 39(3–4), 641–648. CrossRef
Luce, R. D., & Suppes, P. (1965). Preference, utility, and subjective probability. In R. D. Luce, R. R. Bush, & E. Galanter (Eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 249–410). New York: Wiley.
Moffatt, P. G. (2005). Stochastic choice and the allocation of cognitive effort. Experimental Economics, 8(4), 369–388. CrossRef
Moffatt, P. G., & Peters, S. A. (2001). Testing for the presence of a tremble in economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 4(3), 221–228.
Myagkov, M. G., & Plott, C. R. (1997). Exchange economies and loss exposure: experiments exploring prospect theory and competitive equilibria in market environments. American Economic Review, 87(5), 801–828.
Post, G.T., van den Assem, M. J., Baltussen, G., & Thaler, R. H. (2008). Deal or no deal? Decision making under risk in a large-payoff game show. American Economic Review, 98(1), 38–71. CrossRef
Rabin, M. (2002). Inference by believers in the law of small numbers. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(3), 775–816. CrossRef
Reilly, R. J. (1982). Preference reversal: further evidence and some suggested modifications in experimental design. American Economic Review, 72(3), 576–584.
Rosett, R. N. (1971). Weak experimental verification of the expected utility hypothesis. Review of Economic Studies, 38(4), 481–492. CrossRef
Savage, L. J. (1954). The foundations of statistics. New York: Wiley (Second revised edition, 1972, New York: Dover Publications).
Schunk, D., & Betsch, C. (2006). Explaining heterogeneity in utility functions by individual differences in decision modes. Journal of Economic Psychology, 27(3), 386–401. CrossRef
Sefton, M. (1992). Incentives in simple bargaining games. Journal of Economic Psychology, 13(2), 263–276. CrossRef
Simonson, I., & Drolet, A. (2004). Anchoring effects on consumers’ willingness-to-pay and willingness-to-accept. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3), 681–690. CrossRef
Smith, V. L. (1976). Experimental economics: induced value theory. American Economic Review, 66(2), 274–279.
Smith, V. L. (1982). Microeconomic systems as an experimental science. American Economic Review, 72(5), 923–955.
Smith, V. L., & Walker, J. M. (1993). Monetary rewards and decision costs in experimental economics. Economic Inquiry, 31(2), 245–261. CrossRef
Stahl, D. O., & Haruvy, E. (2006). Other-regarding preferences: egalitarian warm glow, empathy, and group size. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 61(1), 20–41. CrossRef
Starmer, C. (2000). Developments in non-expected utility theory: the hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk. Journal of Economic Literature, 38(2), 332–382. CrossRef
Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (1991). Does the random-lottery incentive system elicit true preferences? An experimental investigation. American Economic Review, 81(4), 971–978.
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. CrossRef
Tversky, A. (1967a). Additivity, utility, and subjective probability. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 4(2), 175–201. CrossRef
Tversky, A. (1967b). Utility theory and additivity analysis of risky choices. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 75(1), 27–36. CrossRef
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458. CrossRef
van den Assem, M. J., van Dolder, D., & Thaler, R. H. (2011). Split or steal? Cooperative behavior when the stakes are large. Management Science. doi:10.1287/MNSC.1110.1413.
Wakker, P. P. (2010). Prospect theory: for risk and ambiguity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
Wardrop, R. L. (1995). Simpson’s paradox and the hot hand in basketball. The American Statistician, 49(1), 24–28.
Wilcox, N. T. (1993). Lottery choice: incentives, complexity and decision time. Economic Journal, 103(421), 1397–1417. CrossRef
Wilcox, N. T. (2008). Stochastic models for binary discrete choice under risk: a critical primer and econometric comparison. In J. C. Cox & G. W. Harrison (Eds.), Research in experimental economics: Vol. 12. Risk aversion in experiments (pp. 197–292). Bingley: Emerald. CrossRef
Wooldridge, J. M. (2003). Cluster-sample methods in applied econometrics. American Economic Review, 93(2), 133–138. CrossRef
Yaari, M. E. (1965). Convexity in the theory of choice under risk. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 79(2), 278–290. CrossRef
- Random incentive systems in a dynamic choice experiment
- Open Access
- Available under Open Access This content is freely available online to anyone, anywhere at any time.
Volume 15, Issue 3 , pp 418-443
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer US
- Additional Links
- Random incentive system
- Experimental measurement
- Risky choice
- Risk aversion
- Dynamic choice
- Within-subjects design
- Between-subjects design
- Industry Sectors