IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iaae21/315108.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How Large is the Endowment Effect in the Risky Investment Game?

Author

Listed:
  • Holden, Stein T.
  • Tilahun, Mesfin

Abstract

The risky investment game of Gneezy and Potters (1997) has been a popular tool used to estimate risk tolerance and myopic loss aversion. Holden and Tilahun (2021) tested and found that the simple one-shot version of this game that is attractive as a simple tool to elicit risk tolerance among respondents with limited education, produce significant endowment effects in two variants of the game where alternatively safe and risky initial monetary endowments are allocated. In this paper, we use an alternative treatment that does not induce endowment effects. This allows us to establish a benchmark to assess the relative size of the endowment effects when initial safe and risky endowments are provided (contribution 1). While Prospect Theory could predict endowment effects in the game, it fails to explain the dominance of interior choices (partial investment). We propose an alternative endowment effect theory that gives predictions that are more consistent with the observed partial investment behavior (contribution 2).
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Holden, Stein T. & Tilahun, Mesfin, 2021. "How Large is the Endowment Effect in the Risky Investment Game?," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315108, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:iaae21:315108
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.315108
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/315108/files/0-0_Paper_18775_handout_626_0.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.315108?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dasgupta, Utteeyo & Mani, Subha & Sharma, Smriti & Singhal, Saurabh, 2019. "Can gender differences in distributional preferences explain gender gaps in competition?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 1-11.
    2. Uri Gneezy & Kenneth L. Leonard & John A. List, 2009. "Gender Differences in Competition: Evidence From a Matrilineal and a Patriarchal Society," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(5), pages 1637-1664, September.
    3. Claudia R. Sahm, 2012. "How Much Does Risk Tolerance Change?," Quarterly Journal of Finance (QJF), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 2(04), pages 1-38.
    4. Bateman, Ian & Kahneman, Daniel & Munro, Alistair & Starmer, Chris & Sugden, Robert, 2005. "Testing competing models of loss aversion: an adversarial collaboration," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(8), pages 1561-1580, August.
    5. Maarten J. Voors & Eleonora E. M. Nillesen & Philip Verwimp & Erwin H. Bulte & Robert Lensink & Daan P. Van Soest, 2012. "Violent Conflict and Behavior: A Field Experiment in Burundi," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(2), pages 941-964, April.
    6. 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.
    7. Cassar, Alessandra & Healy, Andrew & von Kessler, Carl, 2017. "Trust, Risk, and Time Preferences After a Natural Disaster: Experimental Evidence from Thailand," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 90-105.
    8. Stephen L. Cheung, 2020. "Eliciting utility curvature in time preference," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(2), pages 493-525, June.
    9. Charness, Gary & Viceisza, Angelino, 2016. "Three Risk-elicitation Methods in the Field - Evidence from Rural Senegal," Review of Behavioral Economics, now publishers, vol. 3(2), pages 145-171, July.
    10. Keith M. Marzilli Ericson & Andreas Fuster, 2011. "Expectations as Endowments: Evidence on Reference-Dependent Preferences from Exchange and Valuation Experiments," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 126(4), pages 1879-1907.
    11. Holden, Stein T. & Tilahun, Mesfin, 2021. "How Large is the Endowment Effect in the Risky Investment Game?," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315108, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Ulrich Schmidt & Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden, 2008. "Third-generation prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 203-223, June.
    13. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    14. Chie Hanaoka & Hitoshi Shigeoka & Yasutora Watanabe, 2015. "Do Risk Preferences Change? Evidence from Panel Data before and after the Great East Japan Earthquake," NBER Working Papers 21400, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Cappelletti, Dominique & Mittone, Luigi & Ploner, Matteo, 2014. "Are default contributions sticky? An experimental analysis of defaults in public goods provision," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 331-342.
    16. Charles R. Plott & Kathryn Zeiler, 2007. "Exchange Asymmetries Incorrectly Interpreted as Evidence of Endowment Effect Theory and Prospect Theory?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(4), pages 1449-1466, September.
    17. Thaler, Richard, 1980. "Toward a positive theory of consumer choice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 39-60, March.
    18. Daniel Kahneman & Jack L. Knetsch & Richard H. Thaler, 1991. "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
    19. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:1:p:69-76 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Liebenehm, Sabine, 2018. "Temporal Stability of Risk Attitudes and the Impact of Adverse Shocks—A Panel Data Analysis from Thailand and Vietnam," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 262-274.
    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. Holden, Stein T. & Tilahun, Mesfin, 2022. "Are risk preferences explaining gender differences in investment behavior?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    2. Holden, Stein T. & Tilahun, Mesfin, 2022. "Can the risky investment game predict real world investments?," CLTS Working Papers 5/22, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies.
    3. Holden, Stein T. & Tilahun, Mesfin, 2021. "How Large is the Endowment Effect in the Risky Investment Game?," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315108, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Ferdinand M. Vieider & Erik Wengström, 2022. "Introduction to the special issue on “Poverty and Economic Decision-Making”," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(1), pages 1-4, February.
    5. Holden, Stein T. & Tilahun, Mesfin & Sommervoll, Dag Einar, 2022. "Is diminishing impatience in time-dated risky prospects explained by probability weighting?," CLTS Working Papers 3/22, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies.
    6. Suresh G., 2024. "Impact of Financial Literacy and Behavioural Biases on Investment Decision-making," FIIB Business Review, , vol. 13(1), pages 72-86, January.
    7. Holden, Stein T. & Tilahun, Mesfin, 2021. "Shocks and Stability of Risk Preferences," CLTS Working Papers 5/21, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies.

    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. Holden, Stein T. & Tilahun, Mesfin, 2021. "Shocks and Stability of Risk Preferences," CLTS Working Papers 5/21, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies.
    2. Holden, Stein T. & Tilahun, Mesfin, 2020. "Endowment Effects and Loss Aversion in the Risky Investment Game," CLTS Working Papers 1/20, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies.
    3. Liebenehm, Sabine & Degener, Nele & Strobl, Eric, 2018. "Rainfall shocks and risk aversion: Evidence from Southeast Asia," TVSEP Working Papers wp-006, Leibniz Universitaet Hannover, Institute of Development and Agricultural Economics, Project TVSEP.
    4. Stein T. Holden & Mesfin Tilahun, 2022. "Endowment effects in the risky investment game?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(1), pages 259-274, February.
    5. Holden, Stein T. & Tilahun, Mesfin, 2023. "Can climate shocks make vulnerable subjects more willing to take risks?," CLTS Working Papers 3/23, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies.
    6. Holden, Stein T. & Bezu, Sosina, 2019. "Exchange asymmetries in productive assets: Tools, fertilizer or cash?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 269-278.
    7. Holden, Stein T. & Tilahun, Mesfin, 2022. "Can the risky investment game predict real world investments?," CLTS Working Papers 5/22, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies.
    8. Melesse, Mequanint B. & Cecchi, Francesco, 2017. "Does Market Experience Attenuate Risk Aversion? Evidence from Landed Farm Households in Ethiopia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 447-466.
    9. Simon Gächter & Eric J. Johnson & Andreas Herrmann, 2022. "Individual-level loss aversion in riskless and risky choices," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(3), pages 599-624, April.
    10. Liebenehm, Sabine, 2018. "Temporal Stability of Risk Attitudes and the Impact of Adverse Shocks—A Panel Data Analysis from Thailand and Vietnam," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 262-274.
    11. Dertwinkel-Kalt, Markus & Köhler, Katrin, 2016. "Exchange asymmetries for bads? Experimental evidence," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 231-241.
    12. Holden, Stein T. & Tilahun, Mesfin, 2022. "Are risk preferences explaining gender differences in investment behavior?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    13. Raphaël Giraud, 2012. "Money matters: an axiomatic theory of the endowment effect," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 50(2), pages 303-339, June.
    14. Itzhak Venezia, 2018. "Lecture Notes in Behavioral Finance," World Scientific Books, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., number 10751, January.
    15. Buser, Thomas & Ranehill, Eva & van Veldhuizen, Roel, 2021. "Gender differences in willingness to compete: The role of public observability," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    16. Karle, Heiko & Schumacher, Heiner & Vølund, Rune, 2023. "Consumer loss aversion and scale-dependent psychological switching costs," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 214-237.
    17. Eduard Marinov, 2017. "The 2017 Nobel Prize in Economics," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 6, pages 117-159.
    18. Celse, Jeremy & Karakostas, Alexandros & Zizzo, Daniel John, 2023. "Relative risk taking and social curiosity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 210(C), pages 243-264.
    19. Krčál, Ondřej & Staněk, Rostislav & Slanicay, Martin, 2019. "Made for the job or by the job? A lab-in-the-field experiment with firefighters," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(4), pages 271-276.
    20. Mercè Roca & Robin Hogarth & A. Maule, 2006. "Ambiguity seeking as a result of the status quo bias," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 175-194, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Risk and Uncertainty;

    JEL classification:

    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • H23 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Externalities; Redistributive Effects; Environmental Taxes and Subsidies

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:iaae21:315108. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iaaeeea.html .

    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.