Journal of Risk and Uncertainty

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 155–168 | Cite as

The Impact of Incentives Upon Risky Choice Experiments



Much of the evidence raising doubts about expected utility theory (EUT) comes from experiments involving hypothetical decisions. Most of the rest of the evidence comes from experiments where respondents are asked to make a large number of decisions, knowing that only one of these will provide the basis for payment. Concerns have often been expressed about the "realness" of such data, and their reliability as a basis for criticizing EUT and promoting alternative theories. The present article reviews this debate and reports new experimental results that directly address this issue.

choice experiments incentives risk 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allais, Maurice. (1953). “Le Comportement de l'Homme Rationnel devant le Risque: Critique des Postulats et Axiomes de l'Ecole Americaine,” Econometrica 21, 503–546.Google Scholar
  2. Battalio, Raymond, John Kagel, and Komain Jiranyakul. (1990). “Testing Between Alternative Models of Choice Under Uncertainty: Some Initial Results,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 3, 25–50.Google Scholar
  3. Becker, Gordon, Morris DeGroot, and Jacob Marschak. (1964). “Measuring Utility by a Single-Response Sequential Method,” Behavioral Science 9, 226–232.Google Scholar
  4. Camerer, Colin. (1995). “Individual Decision Making.” In John Kagel and Alvin Roth (eds.), The Handbook of Experimental Economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Conlisk, John. (1989). “Three Variants on the Allais Example,” American Economic Review 79, 392–407.Google Scholar
  6. Cubitt, Robin, Chris Starmer, and Robert Sugden. (1996). “Dynamic Choice and the Common Ratio Effect: An Experimental Investigation,” mimeo, School of Economics and Social Studies, University of East Anglia.Google Scholar
  7. Davis, Douglas, and Charles Holt. (1993). Experimental Economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Harrison, Glenn. (1994). “Expected Utility Theory and the Experimentalists,” Empirical Economics 19, 223–253.Google Scholar
  9. Holt, Charles. (1986). “Preference Reversals and the Independence Axiom,” American Economic Review 76, 508–515.Google Scholar
  10. Kagel, John, and Alvin Roth. (1995). The Handbook of Experimental Economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky. (1979). “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk,” Econometrica 47, 263–291.Google Scholar
  12. Karni, Edi, and Zvi Safra. (1987). “Preference Reversal and the Observability of Preferences by Experimental Methods,” Econometrica 55, 675–685.Google Scholar
  13. Rousseas, Stephen, and Albert Hart. (1951). “Experimental Verification of a Composite Indifference Map,” Journal of Political Economy 59, 288–318.Google Scholar
  14. Segal, Uzi. (1988). “Does the Preference Reversal Phenomenon Necessarily Contradict the Independence Axiom?” American Economic Review 78, 233–236.Google Scholar
  15. Shugan, Steven. (1980). “The Cost of Thinking,” Journal of Consumer Research 7, 99–111.Google Scholar
  16. Slonim, Robert, and Alvin Roth. (1995). “Financial Incentives and Learning in Ultimatum and Market Games: An Experiment in the Slovak Republic,” mimeo, Department ofss Economics, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  17. Smith, Vernon, and James Walker. (1993). “Monetary Rewards and Decision Cost in Experimental Economics,” Economic Inquiry XXXI, 245–261.Google Scholar
  18. Starmer, Chris, and Robert Sugden. (1991). “Does the Random-Lottery Incentive System Elicit True Preferences? An Experimental Investigation,” American Economic Review 81, 971–978.Google Scholar
  19. Wilcox, Nathaniel. (1993). “Lottery Choice: Incentives, Complexity and Decision Time,” Economic Journal 103, 1397–1417.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Laboratory of Experimental PsychologyUniversity of SussexBrightonUK
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsUniversity of Newcastle upon TyneNewcastleU.K

Personalised recommendations