Theory and Decision

, Volume 70, Issue 4, pp 431–445 | Cite as

Lottery pricing under time pressure

  • Pavlo R. Blavatskyy
  • Wolfgang R. Köhler


This article investigates how subjects determine minimum selling prices for lotteries. We design an experiment where subjects have at every moment an incentive to state their minimum selling price and to adjust the price, if they believe that the price that they stated initially was not optimal. We observe frequent and sizeable price adjustments. We find that random pricing models cannot explain the observed price patterns. We show that earlier prices contain information about future price adjustments. We propose a model of Stochastic Pricing that offers an intuitive explanation for these price adjustment patterns.


Time pressure Certainty equivalent Experiment Stochastic Becker–DeGroot–Marschak (BDM) method 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Becker G. M., DeGroot M. H., Marschak J. (1964) Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behavioral Science 9: 226–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ben Zur H., Breznitz S. J. (1981) The effect of time pressure on risky choice behavior. Acta Psychologica 47: 89–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blavatskyy, P. R., & Köhler, W. R. (2009). Range effects and lottery pricing. Experimental Economics doi: 10.1007/s10683-009-9215-y.
  4. Busemeyer J. R. (1985) Decision making under uncertainty: A comparison of simple scalability, fixed sample, and sequential sampling models. Journal of Experimental Psychology 11: 538–564Google Scholar
  5. Busemeyer J. R. (1993) Violations of the speed-accuracy trade-off relation: Decreases in decision accuracy with increases in decision time. In: Svenson O., Maule A. J. (eds) Time Pressure and stress in human judgment and decision making. Plenum, New York, pp 181–193Google Scholar
  6. Fischbacher U. (2007) z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics 10(2): 171–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Johnson J. G., Busemeyer J. R. (2005) A dynamic, stochastic, computational model of preference reversal phenomena. Psychological Review 112: 841–861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Tversky A., Kahneman D. (1992) Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5: 297–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Wilcox N. (1994) On a lottery pricing anomaly: Time tells the tale. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 8: 311–324Google Scholar
  10. Wright P. (1974) The harassed decision maker: Time pressures, distractions, and the use of evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology 59: 555–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Public FinanceUniversity of InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria
  2. 2.EnbW Trading GmbHKarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations