The relevance of coarse thinking for investors' willingness to pay: An experimental study
AbstractPeople tend to think by analogies. We investigate whether thinking-by-analogy matters for investors’ willingness to pay for a risky asset in a laboratory experiment. We find that thinking-by-analogy has a strong influence when the assets in question have similar (but not identical) payoffs. The hypothesis of thinking-by-analogy or coarse thinking clearly outperforms other hypotheses including the hypothesis of arbitrage-free or rational pricing. When the similarity between the payoffs is reduced, the risk neutral hypothesis outperforms the hypothesis of thinking-by-analogy. Regardless of the similarity between the payoffs, the arbitrage-free or rational pricing remains the hypothesis with the worst performance.
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 Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 23924.
Date of creation: 02 Jul 2010
Date of revision:
Coarse Thinking; Thinking-by-Analogy; Asset Pricing; Call Option;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- G12 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Asset Pricing; Trading Volume; Bond Interest Rates
- G11 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Portfolio Choice; Investment Decisions
- C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - General
- G00 - Financial Economics - - General - - - General
- G13 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Contingent Pricing; Futures Pricing
- C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
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.:
- Siddiqi, Hammad, 2009. "Is the lure of choice reflected in market prices? Experimental evidence based on the 4-door Monty Hall problem," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 203-215, April.
- Sendhil Mullainathan & Joshua Schwartzstein & Andrei Shleifer, 2006.
"Coarse Thinking and Persuasion,"
NBER Working Papers
12720, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Rockenbach, Bettina, 2004. "The behavioral relevance of mental accounting for the pricing of financial options," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 513-527, April.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Ekkehart Schlicht).
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.