Journal of Risk and Uncertainty

, Volume 37, Issue 1, pp 57–75 | Cite as

Myopic risk-seeking: The impact of narrow decision bracketing on lottery play

Article

Abstract

In two experiments conducted with low-income participants, we find that individuals are more likely to buy state lottery tickets when they make several purchase decisions one-at-a-time, i.e. myopically, than when they make one decision about how many tickets to purchase. These results extend earlier findings showing that “broad bracketing” of decisions encourages behavior consistent with expected value maximization. Additionally, the results suggest that the combination of myopic decision making and the “peanuts effect”—greater risk seeking for low stakes than high stakes gambles—can help explain the popularity of state lotteries.

Keywords

Decision framing Bracketing State lotteries Myopic loss aversion Peanuts effect Gambling 

JEL Classification

C91 D81 I30 

References

  1. Ackert, Lucy F., Narat Charupat, Bryan K. Church, and Richard Deaves. (2006). “An Experimental Examination of the House Money Effect in a Multi-Period Setting,” Experimental Economics 9(1), 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benartzi, Shlomo, and Richard H. Thaler. (1995). “Myopic Loss Aversion and the Equity Premium Puzzle,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 110(1), 73–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benartzi, Shlomo, and Richard H. Thaler. (1999). “Risk Aversion or Myopia? Choices in Repeated Gambles and Retirement Investments,” Management Science 45(3), 364–381.Google Scholar
  4. Bellemare, Charles, Michaela Krause, Sabina Kroger, and Chendi Zhang. (2005). “Myopic Loss Aversion: Information Feedback vs. Investment Flexibility,” Economics Letters 87(3), 319–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brinner, Roger E., and Charles T. Clotfelter. (1975). “An Economic Appraisal of State Lotteries,” National Tax Journal 23(4), 395–404.Google Scholar
  6. Clotfelter, Charles T., and Philip J. Cook. (1989). Selling Hope: State Lotteries in America. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Clotfelter, Charles T., and Philip J. Cook. (1991). “Lotteries in the Real World,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 4(3), 227–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clotfelter, Charles T., Philip J. Cook, Julie A. Edell, and Marian Moore. (1999). “State Lotteries at the Turn of the Century.” Report to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission.Google Scholar
  9. DeKay, Michael L., and Tai Gyu Kim. (2005). “When Things Don’t Add Up: The Role of Perceived Fungibility in Repeated-Play Decisions,” Psychological Science 16(9), 667–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Edwards, Ward. (1962). “Subjective Probabilities Inferred from Decisions,” Psychological Review 69(2), 109–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gneezy, Uri, and Jan Potters. (1997). “An Experiment on Risk Taking and Evaluation Periods,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 112(2), 631–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gneezy, Uri, Arie Kapteyn, and Jan Potters. (2003). “Evaluation Periods and Asset Prices in a Market Experiment,” Journal of Finance 58(2), 821–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gonzalez, Richard, and George Wu. (1999). “On the Shape of the Probability Weighting Function,” Cognitive Psychology 38(1), 129–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Green, Leonard, and Joel Myerson. (2004). “A Discounting Framework for Choice with Delayed and Probabilistic Rewards,” Psychological Bulletin 130(5), 769–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hansen, Alicia. (1995). “The Tax Incidence of the Colorado State Lottery Instant Games,” Public Finance Quarterly 23(3), 385–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hansen, Alicia. (2007). “Gambling with Tax Policy: States’ Growing Reliance on Lottery Tax Revenue,” Tax Foundation Background Paper 54.Google Scholar
  17. Hansen, Alicia, Anthony D. Miyazaki, and David E. Sprott. (2000). “The Tax Incidence of Lotteries: Evidence from Five States,” The Journal of Consumer Affairs 34(2), 182–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Henderson, Pamela W., and Robert A. Peterson. (1992). “Mental Accounting and Categorization,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 51(1), 92–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jarvik, Murray E. (1951). “Probability Learning and a Negative Recency Effect in the Serial Anticipation of Alternative Symbols,” Journal of Experimental Psychology 41(4), 291–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky. (1979). “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,” Econometrica 47(2), 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kahneman, Daniel, and Dan Lovallo. (1993). “Timid Choices and Bold Forecasts: A Cognitive Perspective on Risk Taking,” Management Science 39(1), 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kearney, Melissa S. (2005a). “The Economic Winners and Losers of Legalized Gambling,” National Tax Journal 58(2), 281–302.Google Scholar
  23. Kearney, Melissa S. (2005b). “State Lotteries and Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Public Economics 89(11/12), 2269–2299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Keren, Gideon, and Willem A. Wagenaar. (1987). “Violation of Utility Theory in Unique and Repeated Gambles,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 13(3), 387–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. LaFleur, Teresa, and Bruce LaFleur. (2003). LaFleur’s 2003 World Lottery Almanac. Boyds, MD: TLF Publications.Google Scholar
  26. Langer, Thomas, and Martin Weber. (2001). “Prospect Theory, Mental Accounting, and Differences in Aggregated and Segregated Evaluation of Lottery Portfolios,” Management Science 47(5), 716–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Langer, Thomas and Martin Weber. (2003). “Does Binding of Feedback Influence Myopic Loss Aversion? An Experimental Analysis,” C.E.P.R. Discussion Paper: 4084.Google Scholar
  28. Langer, Thomas, and Martin Weber. (2005). “Myopic Prospect Theory vs. Myopic Loss Aversion: How General Is the Phenomenon?,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 56(1), 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. León, Orfelio G., and Lola L. Lopes. (1988). “Risk Preference and Feedback,” Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 26(4), 343–346.Google Scholar
  30. Light, Ivan. (1977). “Numbers Gambling among Blacks: A Financial Institution,” American Sociological Review 42, 892–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Livernois, John R. (1987). “The Redistributive Effect of Lotteries: Evidence from Canada,” Public Finance Quarterly 15(3), 339–351.Google Scholar
  32. Markowitz, Harry. (1952). “The Utility of Wealth,” The Journal of Political Economy 60(2), 151–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Prelec, Drazen. (1998). “The Probability Weighting Function,” Econometrica 66(3), 497–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Prelec, Drazen, and George Loewenstein. (1991). “Decision Making over Time and under Uncertainty: A Common Approach,” Management Science 37(7), 770–786.Google Scholar
  35. Quiggin, John. (1982). “A Theory of Anticipated Utility,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 3(4), 323–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Read, Daniel, George Loewenstein, and Matthew Rabin. (1999). “Choice Bracketing,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 19(1), 171–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Redelmeier, Donald A., and Amos Tversky. (1992). “On the Framing of Multiple Prospects,” Psychological Science 3(3), 191–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Samuelson, Paul. (1963). “Risk and Uncertainty: A Fallacy of Large Numbers,” Scientia 98, 108–113.Google Scholar
  39. Spiro, Michael H. (1974). “On the Incidence of the Pennsylvania Lottery,” National Tax Journal 27(1), 57–61.Google Scholar
  40. Suits, Daniel B. (1977). “Gambling Taxes: Regressivity and Revenue Potential,” National Tax Journal 30(1), 19–35.Google Scholar
  41. Sylvain, Caroline, Robert Ladouceur, and Jean-Marie Boisvert. (1997). “Cognitive and Behavioral Treatment of Pathological Gambling: A Controlled Study,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 65(5), 727–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Terrell, Dek. (1994). “A Test of the Gambler’s Fallacy: Evidence from Pari-mutuel Games,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 8(3), 309–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Thaler, Richard, and Eric J. Johnson. (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.Google Scholar
  44. Thaler, Richard, Amos Tversky, Daniel Kahneman, and Alan Schwartz. (1997). “The Effect of Myopia and Loss Aversion on Risk Taking: An Experimental Test,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 112(2), 647–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. (1992). “Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5(4), 297–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Weber, Bethany J., and Gretchen B. Chapman. (2005). “Playing for Peanuts: Why is Risk Seeking More Common for Low-Stakes Gambles?,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 97(1), 31–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wedell, Douglas H., and Ulf Böckenholt. (1994). “Contemplating Single versus Multiple Encounters of a Risky Prospect,” American Journal of Psychology 107(4), 499–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wu, George, and Richard Gonzalez. (1998). “Common Consequence Conditions in Decision Making under Risk,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 16(1), 115–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emily Haisley
    • 1
  • Romel Mostafa
    • 2
  • George Loewenstein
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Organizational Behavior and TheoryCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Department of Social and Decision SciencesCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations