IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jeurec/v18y2020i2p1009-1039..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Individual Preference for Longshots

Author

Listed:
  • Robin Chark
  • Soo Hong Chew
  • Songfa Zhong

Abstract

Results from studies on risk taking behavior suggest that people tend to be risk seeking when making choices over lotteries that involve longshots: small probabilities of winning sizable payoffs. To investigate preferences over longshots systematically, we conduct an incentivized experiment using state lotteries in China, each involving a single prize and fixed winning odds. This enables our construction of single-prize lotteries involving winning odds between 10-5 and 10-1 and winning prizes ranging from RMB10 (about USD1.60) to RMB10,000,000 (about USD1.60 million) across different expected payoffs. For lotteries with expected payoffs of 1 and 10, subjects exhibit heterogeneous preferences for longshots: some prefer the smallest winning probability whereas others favor intermediate winning probabilities. As the expected payoff increases to 100, subjects become predominantly risk averse, even for the lowest winning probability of 10-5. Our findings pose challenges for utility models of decision making under risk.

Suggested Citation

  • Robin Chark & Soo Hong Chew & Songfa Zhong, 2020. "Individual Preference for Longshots," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 18(2), pages 1009-1039.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:jeurec:v:18:y:2020:i:2:p:1009-1039.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jeea/jvz004
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Konstantinos Georgalos & Ivan Paya & David Peel, 2023. "Higher order risk attitudes: new model insights and heterogeneity of preferences," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(1), pages 145-192, March.
    2. Karl Whelan, 2024. "Risk aversion and favourite–longshot bias in a competitive fixed‐odds betting market," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 91(361), pages 188-209, January.
    3. Raman Kachurka & Michał Krawczyk & Joanna Rachubik, 2021. "State lottery in the lab: an experiment in external validity," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(4), pages 1242-1266, December.
    4. Can Xu & Andreas Steiner & Jakob de Haan, 2023. "Does Economic Policy Uncertainty Encourage Gambling? Evidence from the Chinese Welfare Lottery Market," CESifo Working Paper Series 10241, CESifo.
    5. Soo Hong Chew & Haoming Liu & Alberto Salvo, 2021. "Adversity-hope hypothesis: Air pollution raises lottery demand in China," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 62(3), pages 247-280, June.

    More about this item

    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:oup:jeurec:v:18:y:2020:i:2:p:1009-1039.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jeea .

    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.