Do Subjects Separate (or Are They Sophisticated)?
AbstractIn many experiments, particularly individual choice experiments, experimenters ask many questions to the subjects and use the random lottery incentive mechanism to give an incentive to the subjects. That is, the experimenter, at the end of the experiment, picks just one of the questions, plays out that question, and pays the subject on the basis of this one question. The idea is that subjects should separate the various questions and reply to each as if it were a separate questionâ€”in isolation from all the other questions in the experiment. This procedure is methodologically sound if the subjects behave in accordance with Expected Utility (EU) theory, since this theory says that the best procedure for the subjects is to separate the various questions. However, if there is any doubt as to whether the subjects obey EU theory, and particularly if the experiment is designed to test whether the behaviour of the subjects is in accordance with EU, this incentive mechanism is open to criticism. Indeed many referees use this argument against the research. The response that the subjects may not respect EU, yet still separate the various questions, is obviously open to objection and generally it is not clear whether this response is valid or not. There have been two direct tests of this separation hypothesis (by Starmer and Sugden (1991) and by Cubitt et al. (1998), which suggest that it is valid, but further evidence is required. This paper provides a further, stronger, test of this hypothesis: we confront the two storiesâ€”(1) that the subjects answer the various questions separately, and (2) that the subjects respond to the experiment as a wholeâ€”using experimental data from an experiment in which the random lottery incentive mechanism was used. Our analysis shows that it would appear that subjects do answer as if they were separating the questions. This should be considered reassuring for those experimenters who use the random lottery incentive mechanism. Copyright Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Springer in its journal Experimental Economics.
Volume (Year): 8 (2005)
Issue (Month): 3 (September)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=102888
random lottery incentive mechanism; separation hypothesis; strategies; Seltenâ€™s measure of predictive success;
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Hey, John D & Orme, Chris, 1994. "Investigating Generalizations of Expected Utility Theory Using Experimental Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(6), pages 1291-1326, November.
- Selten, Reinhard, 1991.
"Properties of a measure of predictive success,"
Mathematical Social Sciences,
Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 153-167, April.
- Camerer, Colin F, 1989. " An Experimental Test of Several Generalized Utility Theories," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 61-104, April.
- Cubitt, Robin P & Sugden, Robert, 2001. " Dynamic Decision-Making under Uncertainty: An Experimental Investigation of Choices between Accumulator Gambles," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 103-28, March.
- Tversky, Amos & Slovic, Paul & Kahneman, Daniel, 1990. "The Causes of Preference Reversal," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(1), pages 204-17, March.
- Beattie, Jane & Loomes, Graham, 1997. "The Impact of Incentives upon Risky Choice Experiments," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 155-68, March.
- Robin Cubitt & Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden, 1998. "On the Validity of the Random Lottery Incentive System," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 115-131, September.
- John Hey & Jinkwon Lee, 2005. "Do subjects remember the past?," Applied Economics, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 37(1), pages 9-18.
- Farkas, Daniel & Nitzan, Shmuel, 1979. "The Borda Rule and Pareto Stability: A Comment," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(5), pages 1305-06, September.
- Holt, Charles A, 1986. "Preference Reversals and the Independence Axiom," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(3), pages 508-15, June.
- Andreoni, James, 2007. "Giving gifts to groups: How altruism depends on the number of recipients," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(9), pages 1731-1749, September.
- Kocher, Martin G. & Pahlke, Julius & Trautmann, Stefan T., 2011. "Tempus Fugit: Time Pressure in Risky Decisions," Discussion Papers in Economics 12221, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
- Mathieu Lefebvre & Ferdinand Vieider & Marie-Claire Villeval, 2009.
"The Ratio Bias Phenomenon : Fact or Artifact ?,"
0925, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique (GATE), Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS), Université Lyon 2, Ecole Normale Supérieure.
- Mathieu Lefebvre & Ferdinand Vieider & Marie-Claire Villeval, 2011. "The Ratio Bias Phenomenon : Fact or Artifact ?," Post-Print halshs-00435956, HAL.
- Lefèbvre, Mathieu & Vieider, Ferdinand M. & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2009. "The Ratio Bias Phenomenon: Fact or Artifact?," IZA Discussion Papers 4546, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
- Nagore Iriberri & Pedro Rey-Biel, 2009.
"The Role of Role Uncertainty in Modified Dictator Games,"
406, Barcelona Graduate School of Economics.
- Nagore Iriberri & Pedro Rey-Biel, 2011. "The role of role uncertainty in modified dictator games," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 160-180, May.
- Nagore Iriberri & Pedro Rey-Biel, 2008. "The role of role uncertainty in modified dictator games," Economics Working Papers 1147, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised Apr 2010.
- Katerina Sherstyuk & Nori Tarui & Majah-Leah Ravago & Tatsuyoshi Saijo, 2011. "Payment schemes in random-termination experimental games," Working Papers 201102, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of Economics.
- Morone, Andrea, 2010.
"On price data elicitation: A laboratory investigation,"
The Journal of Socio-Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 540-545, October.
- Morone, Andrea, 2009. "On Price Data Elicitation: a Laboratory Investigation," MPRA Paper 18358, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Füllbrunn, Sascha & Rau, Holger & Weitzel, Utz, 2013. "Do ambiguity effects survive in experimental asset markets?," MPRA Paper 44700, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- James Andreoni, 2006. "Giving Gifts to Groups: How Congestible is Altruism?," Levine's Bibliography 321307000000000166, UCLA Department of Economics.
- André De Palma & Nathalie Picard & Anthony Ziegelmeyer, 2009.
"Individual and couple decision behavior under risk: Evidence on the dynamics of power balance,"
- André Palma & Nathalie Picard & Anthony Ziegelmeyer, 2011. "Individual and couple decision behavior under risk: evidence on the dynamics of power balance," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 70(1), pages 45-64, January.
- John D Hey & Gianna Lotito & Anna Maffioletti, 2008.
"The Descriptive and Predictive Adequacy of Theories of Decision Making Under Uncertainty/Ambiguity,"
08/04, Department of Economics, University of York.
- John Hey & Gianna Lotito & Anna Maffioletti, 2010. "The descriptive and predictive adequacy of theories of decision making under uncertainty/ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 81-111, October.
- Jinkwon Lee, 2008. "The effect of the background risk in a simple chance improving decision model," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 19-41, February.
- Katerina Sherstyuk & Nori Tarui & Tatsuyoshi Saijo, 2011. "Payment Schemes in Infinite-Horizon Experimental Games," Working Papers 201118, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of Economics.
- Ferdinand M. Vieider, 2008. "Separating Real Incentives and Accountability," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 08-055/1, Tinbergen Institute.
- Collins, Jill P. & Vossler, Christian A., 2009. "Incentive compatibility tests of choice experiment value elicitation questions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 226-235, September.
- Drichoutis, Andreas & Nayga, Rodolfo, 2013. "A reconciliation of time preference elicitation methods," MPRA Paper 46916, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 12 May 2013.
- Antoni Bosch-Domènech & Joaquim Silvestre, 2006. "Risk aversion and embedding bias," Economics Working Papers 934, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Guenther Eichhorn) or (Christopher F. Baum).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.