IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jeborg/v107y2014ipbp798-809.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Experimental evidence on varying uncertainty and skewness in laboratory double-auction markets

Author

Listed:
  • Huber, Jürgen
  • Kirchler, Michael
  • Stefan, Matthias

Abstract

We investigate the influence of skewness in asset fundamentals on asset prices under different states of uncertainty in double-auction markets. Three different types of assets are considered: risky assets, ambiguous assets and assets where the fundamental value distribution can be learned by repeated sampling of realizations. We show that market prices for skewed assets initially differ from those of non-skewed assets for risky as well as for ambiguous assets. Because of learning, the difference in market prices mostly disappears towards the end of trading. When fundamentals are “learned” by experience sampling, prices of all assets, irrespective of skewness, are very efficient from the beginning. Thus, when probabilities are not described but experienced, subjects are better able to estimate the fundamental value of an asset.

Suggested Citation

  • Huber, Jürgen & Kirchler, Michael & Stefan, Matthias, 2014. "Experimental evidence on varying uncertainty and skewness in laboratory double-auction markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PB), pages 798-809.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:107:y:2014:i:pb:p:798-809
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2014.04.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268114001097
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jebo.2014.04.004?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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sunder, Shyam, 1992. "Market for Information: Experimental Evidence," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(3), pages 667-695, May.
    2. Lucy F. Ackert & Narat Charupat & Bryan K. Church & Richard Deaves, 2006. "Margin, Short Selling, And Lotteries In Experimental Asset Markets," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 73(2), pages 419-436, October.
    3. Lei, Vivian & Noussair, Charles N & Plott, Charles R, 2001. "Nonspeculative Bubbles in Experimental Asset Markets: Lack of Common Knowledge of Rationality vs. Actual Irrationality," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(4), pages 831-859, July.
    4. Robin M. Hogarth & Hillel J. Einhorn, 1990. "Venture Theory: A Model of Decision Weights," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(7), pages 780-803, July.
    5. Tobias Brunner & Rene Levinsky & Jianying Qiu, 2011. "Preferences for skewness: evidence from a binary choice experiment," The European Journal of Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(7), pages 525-538.
    6. 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.
    7. Jennifer Conrad & Robert F. Dittmar & Eric Ghysels, 2013. "Ex Ante Skewness and Expected Stock Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 68(1), pages 85-124, February.
    8. Nicholas Barberis & Ming Huang, 2008. "Stocks as Lotteries: The Implications of Probability Weighting for Security Prices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(5), pages 2066-2100, December.
    9. Matthias Sutter & Jürgen Huber & Michael Kirchler, 2012. "Bubbles and Information: An Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(2), pages 384-393, February.
    10. John D. Hey & Gianna Lotito & Anna Maffioletti, 2018. "The descriptive and predictive adequacy of theories of decision making under uncertainty/ambiguity," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 8, pages 189-219, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    11. Camerer, Colin & Weber, Martin, 1992. "Recent Developments in Modeling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 325-370, October.
    12. Plott, Charles R & Sunder, Shyam, 1982. "Efficiency of Experimental Security Markets with Insider Information: An Application of Rational-Expectations Models," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 90(4), pages 663-698, August.
    13. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    14. Markus K. Brunnermeier & Jonathan A. Parker & Christian Gollier, 2007. "Optimal Beliefs, Asset Prices, and the Preference for Skewed Returns," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(2), pages 159-165, May.
    15. Helena Veiga & Marc Vorsatz, 2010. "Information aggregation in experimental asset markets in the presence of a manipulator," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 13(4), pages 379-398, December.
    16. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    17. Camerer, Colin & Weigelt, Keith, 1991. "Information Mirages in Experimental Asset Markets," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 64(4), pages 463-493, October.
    18. Christine Kaufmann & Martin Weber & Emily Haisley, 2013. "The Role of Experience Sampling and Graphical Displays on One's Investment Risk Appetite," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(2), pages 323-340, July.
    19. Grether, David M & Plott, Charles R, 1979. "Economic Theory of Choice and the Preference Reversal Phenomenon," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(4), pages 623-638, September.
    20. Graham Loomes & Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden, 2003. "Do Anomalies Disappear in Repeated Markets?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 113(486), pages 153-166, March.
    21. Michael Kirchler & Jurgen Huber & Thomas Stockl, 2012. "Thar She Bursts: Reducing Confusion Reduces Bubbles," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(2), pages 865-883, April.
    22. Campbell R. Harvey & Akhtar Siddique, 2000. "Conditional Skewness in Asset Pricing Tests," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 55(3), pages 1263-1295, June.
    23. David Dequech, 2000. "Fundamental Uncertainty and Ambiguity," Eastern Economic Journal, Eastern Economic Association, vol. 26(1), pages 41-60, Winter.
    24. Jürgen Huber & Michael Kirchler, 2012. "The impact of instructions and procedure on reducing confusion and bubbles in experimental asset markets," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(1), pages 89-105, March.
    25. Binmore, Ken, 1999. "Why Experiment in Economics?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 109(453), pages 16-24, February.
    26. Hela Maafi, 2011. "Preference Reversals Under Ambiguity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(11), pages 2054-2066, November.
    27. Plott, Charles R & Sunder, Shyam, 1988. "Rational Expectations and the Aggregation of Diverse Information in Laboratory Security Markets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 56(5), pages 1085-1118, September.
    28. Martin Dufwenberg & Tobias Lindqvist & Evan Moore, 2005. "Bubbles and Experience: An Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(5), pages 1731-1737, December.
    29. Rakesh K. Sarin & Martin Weber, 1993. "Effects of Ambiguity in Market Experiments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(5), pages 602-615, May.
    30. Füllbrunn, Sascha & Rau, Holger & Weitzel, Utz, 2013. "Do ambiguity effects survive in experimental asset markets?," MPRA Paper 44700, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    31. Peter Bossaerts & Paolo Ghirardato & Serena Guarnaschelli & William R. Zame, 2010. "Ambiguity in Asset Markets: Theory and Experiment," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 23(4), pages 1325-1359, April.
    32. Camerer, Colin F, 1987. "Do Biases in Probability Judgment Matter in Markets? Experimental Evidence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(5), pages 981-997, December.
    33. Rui Albuquerque, 2012. "Skewness in Stock Returns: Reconciling the Evidence on Firm Versus Aggregate Returns," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 25(5), pages 1630-1673.
    34. Ernan Haruvy & Charles N. Noussair, 2006. "The Effect of Short Selling on Bubbles and Crashes in Experimental Spot Asset Markets," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 61(3), pages 1119-1157, June.
    35. Smith, Vernon L & Suchanek, Gerry L & Williams, Arlington W, 1988. "Bubbles, Crashes, and Endogenous Expectations in Experimental Spot Asset Markets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 56(5), pages 1119-1151, September.
    36. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    37. Duong Nguyen & Tribhuvan N. Puri, 2009. "Higher‐Order Systematic Comoments and Asset Pricing: New Evidence," The Financial Review, Eastern Finance Association, vol. 44(3), pages 345-369, August.
    38. Thomas Stöckl & Jürgen Huber & Michael Kirchler, 2010. "Bubble measures in experimental asset markets," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 13(3), pages 284-298, September.
    39. Epstein, Larry G & Wang, Tan, 1994. "Intertemporal Asset Pricing Under Knightian Uncertainty," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(2), pages 283-322, March.
    40. Einhorn, Hillel J & Hogarth, Robin M, 1986. "Decision Making under Ambiguity," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 225-250, October.
    41. Greiner, Ben, 2004. "An Online Recruitment System for Economic Experiments," MPRA Paper 13513, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    42. Kahn, Barbara E & Sarin, Rakesh K, 1988. "Modeling Ambiguity in Decisions under Uncertainty," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 15(2), pages 265-272, September.
    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. John Griffin, 2015. "Risk Premia and Knightian Uncertainty in an Experimental Market Featuring a Long-Lived Asset," Fordham Economics Discussion Paper Series dp2015-01, Fordham University, Department of Economics.
    2. John Griffin, 2015. "Risk Premia and Knightian Uncertainty in an Experimental Market Featuring a Long-Lived Asset," Fordham Economics Discussion Paper Series dp2015-01er:dp2015-01, Fordham University, Department of Economics.
    3. Carrillo, Juan & Brocas, Isabelle & Giga, Aleksandar & Zapatero, Fernando, 2016. "Skewness Seeking in a Dynamic Portfolio Choice Experiment," CEPR Discussion Papers 11056, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    4. Christoph Huber & Julia Rose, 2019. "Do individual attitudes towards imprecision survive in experimental asset markets?," Working Papers 2019-06, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    5. Griffin, John, 2017. "Risk premia and ambiguity in an experimental market featuring a long-lived asset," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 21-27.
    6. Annalisa Fabretti & Tommy Gärling & Stefano Herzel & Martin Holmen, 2017. "Convex incentives in financial markets: an agent-based analysis," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 40(1), pages 375-395, November.
    7. Andrea Albertazzi & Friederike Mengel & Ronald Peeters, 2021. "Benchmarking information aggregation in experimental markets," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 59(4), pages 1500-1516, October.
    8. Brice Corgnet & Roberto Hernán González, 2023. "On The Appeal Of Complexity," Working Papers 2312, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    9. Trautmann, Stefan T. & Kuilen, Gijs van de, 2018. "Higher order risk attitudes: A review of experimental evidence," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 108-124.

    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. Utz Weitzel & Christoph Huber & Jürgen Huber & Michael Kirchler & Florian Lindner & Julia Rose & Lauren Cohen, 2020. "Bubbles and Financial Professionals [Margin, short sell, and lotteries in experimental asset markets]," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 33(6), pages 2659-2696.
    2. Corgnet, Brice & Hernán-González, Roberto & Kujal, Praveen, 2020. "On booms that never bust: Ambiguity in experimental asset markets with bubbles," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    3. Razen, Michael & Huber, Jürgen & Kirchler, Michael, 2017. "Cash inflow and trading horizon in asset markets," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 359-384.
    4. Loukas Balafoutas & Simon Czermak & Marc Eulerich & Helena Fornwagner, 2020. "Incentives For Dishonesty: An Experimental Study With Internal Auditors," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 58(2), pages 764-779, April.
    5. Michael Razen & Jürgen Huber & Michael Kirchler, 2016. "Cash Inflow and Trading Horizon in Asset Markets," Working Papers 2016-06, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    6. Nuzzo, Simone & Morone, Andrea, 2017. "Asset markets in the lab: A literature review," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 42-50.
    7. Bousselmi, Wael & Sentis, Patrick & Willinger, Marc, 2019. "How do markets react to (un)expected fundamental value shocks? An experimental analysis," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 90-113.
    8. Amos Nadler & Peiran Jiao & Cameron J. Johnson & Veronika Alexander & Paul J. Zak, 2019. "The Bull of Wall Street: Experimental Analysis of Testosterone and Asset Trading," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(9), pages 4032-4051, September.
    9. Füllbrunn, Sascha & Rau, Holger A. & Weitzel, Utz, 2014. "Does ambiguity aversion survive in experimental asset markets?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PB), pages 810-826.
    10. Thomas Stöckl & Jürgen Huber & Michael Kirchler, 2015. "Multi-period experimental asset markets with distinct fundamental value regimes," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(2), pages 314-334, June.
    11. Griffin, John, 2017. "Risk premia and ambiguity in an experimental market featuring a long-lived asset," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 21-27.
    12. Farjam, Mike & Kirchkamp, Oliver, 2018. "Bubbles in hybrid markets: How expectations about algorithmic trading affect human trading," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 248-269.
    13. Keser, Claudia & Markstädter, Andreas, 2014. "Informational asymmetries in laboratory asset markets with state-dependent fundamentals," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 207, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    14. Claudia Keser & Andreas Markstädter, 2014. "Informational Asymmetries in Laboratory Asset Markets with State-Dependent Fundamentals," CIRANO Working Papers 2014s-30, CIRANO.
    15. Anita Kopányi-Peuker & Matthias Weber & Lauren Cohen, 2021. "Experience Does Not Eliminate Bubbles: Experimental Evidence," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 34(9), pages 4450-4485.
    16. Zhengyang Bao & Andreas Leibbrandt & ple391, 2019. "Thar she resurges: The case of assets that lack positive fundamental value," Monash Economics Working Papers 12-19, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    17. Keser, Claudia & Markstädter, Andreas, 2014. "Informational asymmetries in laboratory asset markets with state-dependent fundamentals," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 207 [rev.], University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    18. Cheung, Stephen L. & Hedegaard, Morten & Palan, Stefan, 2014. "To see is to believe: Common expectations in experimental asset markets," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 84-96.
    19. Marquardt, Philipp & Noussair, Charles N & Weber, Martin, 2019. "Rational expectations in an experimental asset market with shocks to market trends," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 116-140.
    20. Markstädter, Andreas & Keser, Claudia, 2014. "Informational Asymmetries in Laboratory Asset Markets with State Dependent Fundamentals," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100359, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Experimental finance; Skewness; Ambiguity; Risk; Experience sampling; Market efficiency;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • G11 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Portfolio Choice; Investment Decisions

    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:eee:jeborg:v:107:y:2014:i:pb:p:798-809. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jebo .

    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.