IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/germec/v1y2000i2p113-130.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Experimental Evidence for Attractions to Chance

Author

Listed:
  • Albers Wulf
  • Pope Robin
  • Vogt Bodo

    (University of Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Northrhine-Westphalia, Germany)

  • Selten Reinhard

    (University of Bonn, Bonn, NorthRhine-Westphalia, Germany)

Abstract

Divide the decision-maker's future into: (i) a pre-outcome period (lasting from the decision until the outcome of that decision is known), and (ii) a sequel postoutcome period (beginning when the outcome becomes known). Anticipated emotions in both periods may influence the decision, in particular, with regard to an outcome that matters to the person, the enjoyable tension from not yet knowing what this outcome will be. In the experiments presented, lottery choice can be explained by this attraction to chance, and cannot be explained by either convex von Neumann-Morgenstern utility, or by rank-dependent risk-loving weights: attraction to chance is a separate motivator.

Suggested Citation

  • Albers Wulf & Pope Robin & Vogt Bodo & Selten Reinhard, 2000. "Experimental Evidence for Attractions to Chance," German Economic Review, De Gruyter, vol. 1(2), pages 113-130, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:germec:v:1:y:2000:i:2:p:113-130
    DOI: 10.1111/1468-0475.t01-1-00007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0475.t01-1-00007
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1468-0475.t01-1-00007?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robin Cubitt & Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden, 1998. "On the Validity of the Random Lottery Incentive System," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(2), pages 115-131, September.
    2. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    3. Pope, Robin E., 1991. "The delusion of certainty in Savage's sure-thing principle," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 209-241, June.
    4. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Marcus Heldmann & Ralf Morgenstern & Thomas Münte & Bodo Vogt, 2009. "Is brain activity observable that leads to an evaluation of a probability of 0.5 that is different from 0.5 in binary lottery choices?," FEMM Working Papers 09003, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.
    2. Timm Teubner & Marc T. P. Adam & Claudia Niemeyer, 2015. "Measuring risk preferences in field experiments: Proposition of a simplified task," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 35(3), pages 1510-1517.
    3. Battigalli, Pierpaolo & Dufwenberg, Martin, 2009. "Dynamic psychological games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(1), pages 1-35, January.
    4. Heldmann, Marcus & Vogt, Bodo & Heinze, Hans-Jochen & Münte, Thomas, 2009. "Different methods to define utility functions yield different results and engage different neural processes," FEMM Working Papers 09014, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.
    5. Bischoff, Ivo, 2007. "Institutional choice versus communication in social dilemmas--An experimental approach," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 20-36, January.
    6. Fischbacher, Urs & Thöni, Christian, 2008. "Excess entry in an experimental winner-take-all market," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 150-163, July.
    7. von Hagen, Jürgen & Kube, Sebastian & Selten, Reinhard & Pope, Robin, 2006. "Experimental Evidence on the Benefits of Eliminating Exchange Rate Uncertainties and Why Expected Utility Theory causes Economists to Miss Them," Bonn Econ Discussion Papers 28/2006, University of Bonn, Bonn Graduate School of Economics (BGSE).
    8. Pablo Brañas-Garza, 2006. "Why gender based game theory?," ThE Papers 06/08, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    9. Pablo Brañas Garza & Francisca Jiménez Jiménez & Antonio Morales, 2004. "Strategic Uncertainty and Risk Attitudes:"The Experimental Connection"," Economic Working Papers at Centro de Estudios Andaluces E2004/12, Centro de Estudios Andaluces.
    10. Kjell Hausken, 2007. "Book Review," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 62(3), pages 303-309, May.
    11. Pope, Robin & Leitner, Johannes & Leopold-Wildburger, Ulrike, 2009. "Expected utility versus the changes in knowledge ahead," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 199(3), pages 892-901, December.
    12. Heufer, Jan, 2013. "Quasiconcave preferences on the probability simplex: A nonparametric analysis," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 21-30.
    13. Pope, Robin, 2004. "Biases from omitted risk effects in standard gamble utilities," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 695-735, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yaron Azrieli & Christopher P. Chambers & Paul J. Healy, 2020. "Incentives in experiments with objective lotteries," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(1), pages 1-29, March.
    2. Robin Cubitt & Gijs van de Kuilen & Sujoy Mukerji, 2020. "Discriminating Between Models of Ambiguity Attitude: a Qualitative Test," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 18(2), pages 708-749.
    3. Heutel, Garth, 2019. "Prospect theory and energy efficiency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 236-254.
    4. Patrick DeJarnette & David Dillenberger & Daniel Gottlieb & Pietro Ortoleva, 2020. "Time Lotteries and Stochastic Impatience," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(2), pages 619-656, March.
    5. Víctor González-Jiménez, 2021. "Incentive contracts when agents distort probabilities," Vienna Economics Papers vie2101, University of Vienna, Department of Economics.
    6. Peter Brooks & Simon Peters & Horst Zank, 2014. "Risk behavior for gain, loss, and mixed prospects," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(2), pages 153-182, August.
    7. Robin Cubitt & Orestis Kopsacheilis & Chris Starmer, 2022. "An inquiry into the nature and causes of the Description - Experience gap," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 65(2), pages 105-137, October.
    8. Tamás Csermely & Alexander Rabas, 2016. "How to reveal people’s preferences: Comparing time consistency and predictive power of multiple price list risk elicitation methods," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 107-136, December.
    9. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Vitalie Spinu, 2020. "Searching for the Reference Point," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 93-112, January.
    10. Jürgen Eichberger & Werner Güth & Wieland Müller, 2003. "Attitudes Towards Risk: An Experiment," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(1), pages 89-124, February.
    11. Víctor González-Jiménez, 2021. "Incentive contracts when agents distort probabilities," Vienna Economics Papers 2101, University of Vienna, Department of Economics.
    12. Yi Li, 2021. "The ABC mechanism: an incentive compatible payoff mechanism for elicitation of outcome and probability transformations," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(3), pages 1019-1046, September.
    13. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Vitalie Spinu, 2020. "Searching for the Reference Point," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 93-112, January.
    14. James Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj & Ulrich Schmidt, 2015. "Paradoxes and mechanisms for choice under risk," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(2), pages 215-250, June.
    15. Victor H. Gonzalez-Jimenez, 2019. "Contracting Probability Distortions," Vienna Economics Papers vie1901, University of Vienna, Department of Economics.
    16. Patrick DeJarnette & David Dillenberger & Daniel Gottlieb & Pietro Ortoleva, 2014. "Time Lotteries, Second Version," PIER Working Paper Archive 15-026v2, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 12 Jan 2018.
    17. B. Douglas Bernheim & Charles Sprenger, 2020. "On the Empirical Validity of Cumulative Prospect Theory: Experimental Evidence of Rank‐Independent Probability Weighting," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(4), pages 1363-1409, July.
    18. Katarzyna M. Werner & Horst Zank, 2019. "A revealed reference point for prospect theory," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 67(4), pages 731-773, June.
    19. Patrick DeJarnette & David Dillenberger & Daniel Gottlieb & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Time Lotteries," PIER Working Paper Archive 15-026, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 31 Jul 2015.
    20. Victor H. Gonzalez-Jimenez, 2019. "Contracting Probability Distortions," Vienna Economics Papers 1901, University of Vienna, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:germec:v:1:y:2000:i:2:p:113-130. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.