An Experimental Study of Saving and Investing in a Complex Stochastic Environment

  • Vital Anderhub
  • Werner Güth
  • Florian Knust


Optimal intertemporal decision making in a stochastic environment requires considerable analytical skills. Boundedly rational decision makers typically fail in achieving the best outcome. Thus, experimental studies of intertemporal decision making (see the selective survey1 of Anderhub and Güth, 1999) may offer stylized facts which can guide our intuition about how boundedly rational decision makers generate choices.


Individual Investment Investment Level Risk Neutrality Fourth Period Average Investment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderhub, V. (1998). “Savings Decisions when Uncertainty is Reduced.” SFB Discussion Paper, Humboldt University of Berlin.Google Scholar
  2. Anderhub, V, W. Güth, W. Müller, and M. Strobel (forthcoming). “On Saving, Updating and Dynamic Programming - An Experimental Analysis.” Experimental Economics. Google Scholar
  3. Anderhub, V., R. Müller, and C. Schmidt (forthcoming). “Design and Evaluation of an Eco-nomic Experiment via the Internet?’ Journal of Economic Behavior and Organisation. Google Scholar
  4. Anderhub, V., and W. Güth (1999). “On Intertemporal Allocation Behavior - A Selective Survey of Saving Experiments.” ifo-Studien 3, 303–33.Google Scholar
  5. Brandstätter, H. (1988). “Sechzehn Persönlichkeits-Adjektivskalen (16 PA) als Forschungsinstrument anstelle des 16PF.” Zeitschrift für experimentelle and angewandte Psychologie 35, 370–91.Google Scholar
  6. Brandstätter, H., and W. Güth (forthcoming). “A Psychological Approach to Individual Differ- ences in Intertemporal Consumption Patterns.” Journal of Economic Psychology. Google Scholar
  7. Camerer, C. (1995). “Individual Decision Making.” In The Handbook of Experimental Economics, edited by J. H. Kagel and A. E. Roth, 587–703. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Hey, J., and V. Dardanoni (1998). “Optimal Consumption under Uncertainty: An Experimental Investigation.” The Economic Journal 98, 105–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky (1979). “An Analysis of Decision under Risk.” Econometrica 47, 263–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Köhler, J. (1996). “Making Saving Easy: An Experimental Analysis of Savings Decisions.”Mimeo., Department of Economics and Related Studies, University of York.Google Scholar
  11. Levin, I. P., M. A. Snyder, and D. Chapman (1988). “The Interaction of Experimental and Sit-uational Factors and Gender in a Simulated Risky Decision Making Task.” The Journal of Psychology 122, 173–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Rapoport, A. (1975). “Research Paradigms for Studying Decision Behavior.” In Utility, Probability, and Human Decision Making, edited by D. Wendt and C. A. J. Vlek. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  13. Rapoport, A., and L. V. Jones (1970). “Gambling Behavior in Two-Outcome Multistage Betting Games.” Journal of Mathematical Psychology 7, 163–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rapoport, A. et al. (1977). “How One Gambles if One Must: Effects of Differing Return Rates on Multistage Betting Decisions.” Journal of Mathematical Psychology 15, 169–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Selten, R., and J. Buchta (1999). “Experimental Sealed Bid First Price Auction with Directly Observed Bid Functions.” In Games and Human Behavior: Essays in the Honor of Amnon Rapoport, edited by D. Budescu, I. Erev, and R. Zwick. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  16. Thaler, R. (1985). “Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice.” Marketing Science 4, 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Müller, W. (1999). “Strategies, Heuristics and the Relevance of Risk Aversion in a Dynamic Decision Problem.” SFB Discussion Paper 61, Humboldt University of Berlin.Google Scholar
  18. Wärneryd, K.-E. (1999). The Psychology of Saving - A Study on Economic Psychology.Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  19. Weber, M., and C. Camerer (1992). “Recent Developments in Modelling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5, 325–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vital Anderhub
    • 1
  • Werner Güth
    • 1
  • Florian Knust
    • 1
  1. 1.Humboldt-University of BerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations