Experimental Economics

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 145–157 | Cite as

Whose money is it anyway? Using prepaid incentives in experimental economics to create a natural environment

  • Mosi Rosenboim
  • Tal ShavitEmail author


Simulating a real world environment is of utmost importance for achieving accurate and meaningful results in experimental economics. Offering monetary incentives is a common method of creating this environment. In general, experimenters provide the rewards at the time of experiment. In this paper, we argue that receiving the reward at the time of the experiment may lead participants to make decisions as if the money they are using were not their own. To solve this problem, we devised a “prepaid mechanism” that encourages participants to use the money as if it were their own.


Second-price auction Loss aversion Trust game Monetary incentive Experiment Financial decision making Reward 

JEL Classification

C91 D03 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material


  1. Ackert, L. F., Charupat, N., Church, B. K., & Deaves, R. (2006). An experimental examination of the house money effect in a multi-period setting. Experimental Economics, 9(1), 5–16. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995). Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and Economic Behavior, 10, 122–142. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonner, S. E., Hastie, R., Sprinkle, G. B., & Young, S. M. (2000). A review of the effects of financial incentives on performance in laboratory tasks: implications for management accounting. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 12, 19–64. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brooks, P., & Zank, H. (2005). Loss aversion behavior. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 31(3), 301–325. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, P., Chappel, N., Rosa, R. S., & Walter, T. (2006). The reach of the disposition effect: large sample evidence across investor classes. International Review of Finance, 6(1–2), 43–78. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Calia, P., & Strazzera, E. (2001). A sample selection model for protest responses in contingent valuation analyses. Statistical, 61(3), 473–485. Google Scholar
  7. Clark, J. (2002). House money effects in public goods experiments. Experimental Economics, 5(3), 223–231. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chakravarty, S., Harrison, G. W., Haruvy, E. E., & Rutström, E. E. (2009). Are you risk averse over other people’s money? Working Paper, University of Central Florida. Google Scholar
  9. Corrigan, J. R., & Rousu, M. (2006). Posted prices and bid affiliation: evidence from experimental auctions. American Journal Of Agricultural Economics, 88, 1078–1090. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coursey, D. L., Hovis, J. L., & Schulze, W. D. (1987). The disparity between willingness to accept and willingness to pay measures of value. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 102, 679–690. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cox, L. C., Smith, V. L., & Walker, J. K. (1992). Theory and misbehavior of first price auctions: comment. American Economic Review, 82(5), 1392–1412. Google Scholar
  12. Davis, L. R., Joyce, B. P., & Roelofs, M. R. (2010). My money or yours: house money payment effects. Experimental Economics, 13(2), 189–205. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ert, E., & Erev, I. (2008). The rejection of attractive gambles, loss aversion, and the lemon avoidance heuristic. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29, 715–723. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ert, E., & Erev, I. (2010). On the descriptive value of loss aversion in decisions under risk. Harvard Business School Working Paper 10-056. Google Scholar
  15. Fiore, A. (2009). Experimental economics: some methodological notes. MPRA Paper No. 12498. Accessed 19 June 2011.
  16. Friedman, D. (1992). Theory and misbehavior of first price auctions: comment. American Economic Review, 82(5), 1374–1378. Google Scholar
  17. Frino, A., Grant, J., & Johnstone, D. (2008). The house money effect and local traders on the Sydney Futures Exchange. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 16, 8–25. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goeree, J. K., & Offerman, T. (2003). Winner’s curse without overbidding. European Economic Review, 47(4), 625–644. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Haab, T. (1999). Nonparticipation or misspecification? The impacts of nonparticipation on dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 14, 443–461. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Halstead, J. M., Luloff, A. E., & Stevens, T. H. (1992). Protest bidders in contingent valuation. Northeastern. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 21, 160–169. Google Scholar
  21. Harinck, F., Van-Dijk, E., Van-Beest, I., & Mersmann, P. (2007). When gains loom larger than losses: reversed loss aversion for small amounts of money. Psychological Science, 18, 1099–1105. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harrison, G. W. (1989). Theory and misbehavior of first price auctions. American Economic Review, 79(4), 749–762. Google Scholar
  23. Harrison, G.W. (2007). House money effects in public goods experiments: comment. Experimental Economics, 10(4), 429–437. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hertwig, R., & Ortmann, A. (2001). Experimental practices in economics: a methodological challenge for psychologists? Behavioral and Brain Science, 24, 383–403. Google Scholar
  25. Holt, C. A., & Laury, S. K. (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. American Economic Review, 92(5), 1644–1655. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jakobsson, K. M., & Dragun, A. K. (1996). Contingent valuation and endangered species. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Google Scholar
  27. Jorgensen, B. S., & Syme, G. J. (2000). Protest responses and willingness to pay: attitude toward paying for stormwater pollution abatement. Ecological Economics, 33(2), 251–265. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kachelmeier, S. J., & Shehata, M. (1992). Examining risk preferences under high monetary incentives: experimental evidence from the People’s Republic of China. The American Economic Review, 82(5), 1120–1141. Google Scholar
  29. Kagel, J. H. (1995). Auctions: a survey of experimental research. In J. H. Kagel & A. E. Roth (Eds.), The handbook of experimental economics (pp. 501–585). Princeton: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
  30. Kagel, J. H., & Roth, A. E. (1992). Theory and misbehavior of first price auctions: comment. American Economic Review, 82(5), 1379–1391. Google Scholar
  31. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of choice under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Krahnen, J. P., Rieck, C., & Theissen, E. (1997). Inferring risk attitudes from certainty equivalents: some lessons from an experimental study. Journal of Economic Psychology, 18, 469–486. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Liu, Y., Tsai, C., Wang, M., & Zhu, N. (2006). House money effect: evidence from market makers at Taiwan futures exchange. Working paper. University of California, Davis and National Chengchi University. Google Scholar
  34. Malhotra, D., & Murnighan, J. K. (2002). The effect of contracts on interpersonal trust. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 534–559. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Merlo, A., & Schotter, A. (1992). Theory and misbehavior of first price auctions: comment. American Economic Review, 82(5), 1413–1425. Google Scholar
  36. Mitchell, R. C., & Carson, R. T. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Google Scholar
  37. Read, D. (2005). Monetary incentives, what are they good for? Journal of Economic Methodology, 12(2), 265–276. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Redelmeier, D. A., & Tversky, A. (1992). On the framing of multiple prospects. Psychological Science, 3, 191–193. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Reinstein, D., & Riener, G. (2009). House money effects on charitable giving: an experiment. Working paper. University of Essex. Google Scholar
  40. Roth, A. E. (1995). Introduction to experimental economics. In A. Roth & J. Kagel (Eds.), Handbook of experimental economics (pp. 3–109). Princeton: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
  41. Roth, A. E., & Ockenfels, A. (2002). Last-minute bidding and the rules for ending second-price auctions: evidence from eBay and Amazon auctions on the internet. American Economic Review, 92(4), 1093–1103. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shavit, T., Sonsino, D., & Benzion, U. (2001). A comparative study of lotteries: evaluation in class and on the web. Journal of Economic Psychology, 22, 483–491. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shefrin, H. H., & Thaler, R. H. (1988). The behavioral life-cycle hypothesis. Economic Inquiry, 26, 609–643. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shogren, J. F., Cho, S., Koo, C., List, J., Park, C., Polo, P., & Wilhelmi, R. (2001). Auction mechanisms and the measurement of WTP and WTA. Resource and Energy Economics, 23, 97–109. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shyamsundar, P., & Kramer, R. A. (1996). Tropical forest protection: an empirical analysis of the costs borne by local people. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 31, 129–144. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Strazzera, E., Scarpa, R., Calia, P., Garrod, G., & Willis, K. (2000). Modeling zero values in contingent valuation surveys. Note di Lavoro Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, 55/00. Google Scholar
  47. Thaler, R. (1987). The psychology of choice and the assumptions of economics. In A. E. Roth (Ed.), Laboratory experimentation in economics: six points of views. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  48. Thaler, R. H. (1980). Towards a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1, 39–60. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Thaler, R. H., & Johnson, E. (1990). Gambling with the house money and trying to break even: the effects of prior outcomes on risky choice. Management Science, 36, 643–660. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Thaler, R. H., Tversky, A., Kahneman, D., & Swartz, A. (1997). The effect of myopia and loss aversion on risk taking: an experimental test. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 647–661. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tom, S. M., Fox, C. R., Trepel, C., & Poldrack, R. A. (2007). The neural basis of loss aversion in decision making under risk. Science, 315, 515–518. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vickrey, W. (1961). Counterspeculation, auctions, and competitive sealed tenders. Journal of Finance, 16(1), 8–37. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Weber, M., & Zuchel, H. (2005). How do prior outcomes affect risk attitude? Comparing escalation of commitment and the house-money effect. Decision Analysis, 2(1), 30–43. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Whitehead, J. C., Groothuis, P. A., & Blomquist, G. C. (1993). Testing for non-response and sample selection bias in contingent valuation. Economic Letters, 41, 215–220. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Economic Science Association 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Management, Guilford Glazer Faculty of Business and ManagementBen-Gurion University of the NegevBe’er ShevaIsrael
  2. 2.Department of Applied EconomicsSapir Academic CollegeSderotIsrael
  3. 3.School of Business AdministrationCollege of Management Academic StudiesRishon LezionIsrael

Personalised recommendations