Experimental Evidence for Attractions to Chance
AbstractDivide the decisionmaker's future into: (i) a pre-outcome period (lasting from the decision until the outcome of that decision is known), and (ii) a sequel post-outcome period (beginning when the outcome becomes known). Anticipated emotions in both periods may influence the decision, in particular, with regard to an outcome that matters to the person, the enjoyable tension from not yet knowing what this outcome will be. In the experiments presented, lottery choice can be explained by this attraction to chance, and cannot be explained by either convex von Neumann^Morgenstern utility, or by rank dependent risk loving weights: attraction to chance is a separate motivator.
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 InfoPaper provided by University of Bonn, Germany in its series Discussion Paper Serie B with number 461.
Date of creation: Dec 1999
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Bonn Graduate School of Economics, University of Bonn, Adenauerallee 24 - 26, 53113 Bonn, Germany
Fax: +49 228 73 6884
Web page: http://www.bgse.uni-bonn.de
attractions to chance; pre-outcome / post-outcome distinction; agreeable pre-outcome tension; exogenous changes in tension; exogenous changes in the scope for post-outcome elation; regret;
Other versions of this item:
- D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
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.:
- Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
- Pope, Robin, 1999. "Reconciliation with the Utility of Chance by Elaborated Outcomes Destroys the Axiomatic Basis of Expected Utility Theory," Discussion Paper Serie B 449, University of Bonn, Germany.
- 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.
- 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.
- Fischbacher, Urs & Thöni, Christian, 2008.
"Excess entry in an experimental winner-take-all market,"
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,
Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 150-163, July.
- Urs Fischbacher & Christian Thöni, . "Excess Entry in an Experimental Winner-Take-All Market," IEW - Working Papers 086, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
- Heufer, Jan, 2013. "Quasiconcave preferences on the probability simplex: A nonparametric analysis," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 21-30.
- Ronald Bosman & Frans van Winden, 2001. "Anticipated and Experienced Emotions in an Investment Experiment," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 01-058/1, Tinbergen Institute.
- Daniela Grieco & Robin Hogarth, 2004. "Excess entry, ambiguity seeking and competence: An experimental investigation," Economics Working Papers 778, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
- Pierpaolo Battigalli & Martin Dufwenberg, 2005.
"Dynamic Psychological Games,"
287, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
- Pablo Brañas-Garza, 2006. "Why gender based game theory?," ThE Papers 06/08, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
- Pope, Robin, 2004. "Biases from omitted risk effects in standard gamble utilities," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 695-735, July.
- Kjell Hausken, 2007. "Book Review," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 62(3), pages 303-309, May.
- Heldmann, Marcus & Vogt, Bodo & Heinze, Hans-Jochen & Münte, Thomas, 2009. "Different methods to define utility functions yield different results and engage different neural processes," FEMM Working Papers 09014, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (BGSE Office).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.