IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceco/v72y2018icp78-85.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Alternation bias and sums of identically distributed monetary lotteries

Author

Listed:
  • Robles-Zurita, José

Abstract

The alternation bias is the tendency of people to believe that random events alternate more often than statistical laws imply. This paper examines the theoretical effect of this psychological bias on preferences over repeated investments by using a model of the belief in the law of small numbers. An alternation bias agent (ABA) has a different perception to a rational agent (RA) about the outcome distribution of the sum of n realisations of a lottery. The results show that an ABA, that maximises expected utility, could reject a single realisation of a lottery while accepting several repetitions in accordance with Paul Samuelson's fallacy of large numbers. Furthermore, the explanation of this type of preference, based on the alternation bias, is compatible with previous behavioural accounts. A more general result shows that the alternation bias increases (decreases) the expected utility of the perceived sum of identically distributed lotteries if individuals are risk averse (risk seekers).

Suggested Citation

  • Robles-Zurita, José, 2018. "Alternation bias and sums of identically distributed monetary lotteries," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 78-85.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:72:y:2018:i:c:p:78-85
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socec.2017.12.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804317301404
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socec.2017.12.001?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. Rachel Croson & James Sundali, 2005. "The Gambler’s Fallacy and the Hot Hand: Empirical Data from Casinos," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 195-209, May.
    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. Lopes, Lola L., 1996. "When Time Is of the Essence: Averaging, Aspiration, and the Short Run," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 179-189, March.
    4. Liu, Hsin-Hsien & Colman, Andrew M., 2009. "Ambiguity aversion in the long run: Repeated decisions under risk and uncertainty," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 277-284, June.
    5. Shlomo Benartzi & Richard H. Thaler, 1999. "Risk Aversion or Myopia? Choices in Repeated Gambles and Retirement Investments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(3), pages 364-381, March.
    6. Kaivanto, Kim & Kroll, Eike B., 2012. "Negative recency, randomization device choice, and reduction of compound lotteries," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 263-267.
    7. Matthew Rabin, 2002. "Inference by Believers in the Law of Small Numbers," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 117(3), pages 775-816.
    8. Mohammed Abdellaoui & John D. Hey (ed.), 2008. "Advances in Decision Making Under Risk and Uncertainty," Theory and Decision Library C, Springer, number 978-3-540-68437-4, July.
    9. Uri Gneezy & Jan Potters, 1997. "An Experiment on Risk Taking and Evaluation Periods," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 631-645.
    10. Jürgen Huber & Michael Kirchler & Thomas Stöckl, 2010. "The hot hand belief and the gambler’s fallacy in investment decisions under risk," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(4), pages 445-462, April.
    11. Elena Asparouhova & Michael Hertzel & Michael Lemmon, 2009. "Inference from Streaks in Random Outcomes: Experimental Evidence on Beliefs in Regime Shifting and the Law of Small Numbers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(11), pages 1766-1782, November.
    12. Rothschild, Michael & Stiglitz, Joseph E., 1971. "Increasing risk II: Its economic consequences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 3(1), pages 66-84, March.
    13. Shlomo Benartzi & Richard H. Thaler, 1995. "Myopic Loss Aversion and the Equity Premium Puzzle," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 110(1), pages 73-92.
    14. Nielsen, Lars Tyge, 1985. " Attractive Compounds of Unattractive Investments and Gambles," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 87(3), pages 463-473.
    15. Kaivanto, Kim, 2008. "Alternation Bias and the Parameterization of Cumulative Prospect Theory," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, pages 91-107.
    16. Ross, Stephen A., 1999. "Adding Risks: Samuelson's Fallacy of Large Numbers Revisited," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(3), pages 323-339, September.
    17. Rothschild, Michael & Stiglitz, Joseph E., 1970. "Increasing risk: I. A definition," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 225-243, September.
    18. Tversky, Amos & Wakker, Peter, 1995. "Risk Attitudes and Decision Weights," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 63(6), pages 1255-1280, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Kim Kaivanto & Eike Kroll, 2014. "Alternation bias and reduction in St. Petersburg gambles," Working Papers 65600286, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    2. José Antonio Robles-Zurita, 2015. "Alternation Bias and Sums of Identically Distributed Monetary Lotteries," Working Papers 15.08, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Economics.
    3. Kaivanto, Kim & Kroll, Eike B., 2012. "Negative recency, randomization device choice, and reduction of compound lotteries," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 263-267.
    4. Aloysius, John A., 2005. "Ambiguity aversion and the equity premium puzzle: A re-examination of experimental data on repeated gambles," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 635-655, October.
    5. Neszveda, G., 2019. "Essays on behavioral finance," Other publications TiSEM 05059039-5236-42a3-be1b-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    6. Thomas Langer & Martin Weber, 2001. "Prospect Theory, Mental Accounting, and Differences in Aggregated and Segregated Evaluation of Lottery Portfolios," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(5), pages 716-733, May.
    7. Langer, Thomas & Weber, Martin, 2005. "Myopic prospect theory vs. myopic loss aversion: how general is the phenomenon?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 25-38, January.
    8. Iñigo Iturbe-Ormaetxe Kortajarene & Giovanni Ponti & Josefa Tomás Lucas, 2015. "Some (Mis)facts about Myopic Loss Aversion," Working Papers. Serie AD 2015-09, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    9. Moshe Levy & Haim Levy, 2013. "Prospect Theory: Much Ado About Nothing?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 7, pages 129-144, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    10. Epper, Thomas & Fehr-Duda, Helga, 2017. "A Tale of Two Tails: On the Coexistence of Overweighting and Underweighting of Rare Extreme Events," Economics Working Paper Series 1705, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.
    11. Weber, Martin & Langer, Thomas, 2003. "Does Binding of Feedback Influence Myopic Loss Aversion? An Experimental Analysis," CEPR Discussion Papers 4084, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    12. W. Wong & R. Chan, 2008. "Prospect and Markowitz stochastic dominance," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 105-129, January.
    13. Albrecht, Peter & Huggenberger, Markus, 2017. "The fundamental theorem of mutual insurance," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 180-188.
    14. Maximilian Rüdisser & Raphael Flepp & Egon Franck, 2017. "Do casinos pay their customers to become risk-averse? Revising the house money effect in a field experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(3), pages 736-754, September.
    15. Daniel Gottlieb & Olivia S. Mitchell, 2020. "Narrow Framing and Long‐Term Care Insurance," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 87(4), pages 861-893, December.
    16. Langer, Thomas & Weber, Martin, 2008. "Does commitment or feedback influence myopic loss aversion?: An experimental analysis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 67(3-4), pages 810-819, September.
    17. Levy, Haim & Levy, Moshe, 2002. "Experimental test of the prospect theory value function: A stochastic dominance approach," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 1058-1081, November.
    18. Daniel J. Benjamin, 2018. "Errors in Probabilistic Reasoning and Judgment Biases," NBER Working Papers 25200, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Ruß, Jochen & Schelling, Stefan, 2021. "Return smoothing in life insurance from a client perspective," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(PA), pages 91-106.
    20. Trabelsi, Mohamed Ali, 2006. "Les nouveaux modèles de décision dans le risque et l’incertain : quel apport ? [The new models of decision under risk or uncertainty : What approach?]," MPRA Paper 25442, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Alternation bias; Repeated lotteries; Expected utility; Risk aversion; Behavioural economics;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • G02 - Financial Economics - - General - - - Behavioral Finance: Underlying Principles
    • 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:soceco:v:72:y:2018:i:c:p:78-85. 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/inca/620175 .

    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.