This experimental study, first, compares the individual valuations of two risk reduction mechanisms: self-insurance and self-protection. Second, it investigates these valuations when the loss amount is ambiguous, and compare these values with valuations when loss amounts are known. results confirm that there exists no "framing effect" due to the two risk reduction mechanisms. Ambiguity in the loss amount has a weak impact on the valuation, and using different representations of ambiguity does not change the valuation. Moreover, the mean ratios of ambiguous to risky bids are greater than one for low loss amounts indicating ambiguity aversion. These ratios are not significantly different from one for high loss amounts regardless of the probability of loss levels. Finally, 28 percent of the sample behaved consistent with the predictions of "anchoring and adjustment", while only 6 percent supported the "maximin" predictions.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. 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.
Publisher Info
Paper provided by Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Max-Planck-Institute of Economics, Thueringer Universitaets- und Landesbibliothek in its series Jena Economic Research Papers in Economics with number
2007-034.
References listed on IDEAS 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.:
Cited by: (explanations, 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.)