IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/75311.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An inconsistency between certain outcomes and uncertain incentives within behavioral methods

Author

Listed:
  • Harin, Alexander

Abstract

In random–lottery incentive methods, the choices of certain (sure) outcomes are stimulated by uncertain lotteries. This inconsistency is evident, but only recently revealed. Certain and uncertain outcomes can differ from each other. The revealed inconsistency can hide this possible difference. The cause is: under the condition of the uncertain incentive, the questioned subjects can treat a certain outcome as an uncertain one. The considered critical empirical insight should be kept in mind by both theoreticians and practitioners. It leads also to more general questions of comparison of sure and probable (uncertain) outcomes those should be clarified to increase our understanding of behavior problems.

Suggested Citation

  • Harin, Alexander, 2016. "An inconsistency between certain outcomes and uncertain incentives within behavioral methods," MPRA Paper 75311, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:75311
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/75311/1/MPRA_paper_75311.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fehr, Ernst & Falk, Armin, 2002. "Psychological foundations of incentives," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(4-5), pages 687-724, May.
    2. Christian A. Vossler & Maurice Doyon & Daniel Rondeau, 2012. "Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(4), pages 145-171, November.
    3. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Aurelien Baillon & Laetitia Placido & Peter P. Wakker, 2011. "The Rich Domain of Uncertainty: Source Functions and Their Experimental Implementation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 695-723, April.
    4. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    5. Syngjoo Choi & Raymond Fisman & Douglas Gale & Shachar Kariv, 2007. "Consistency, Heterogeneity, and Granularity of Individual Behavior under Uncertainty," Economics Working Papers 0076, Institute for Advanced Study, School of Social Science.
    6. James Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj & Ulrich Schmidt, 2015. "Paradoxes and mechanisms for choice under risk," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(2), pages 215-250, June.
    7. James Andreoni & Charles Sprenger, 2012. "Risk Preferences Are Not Time Preferences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(7), pages 3357-3376, December.
    8. 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.
    9. Ian Larkin & Stephen Leider, 2012. "Incentive Schemes, Sorting, and Behavioral Biases of Employees: Experimental Evidence," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(2), pages 184-214, May.
    10. Syngjoo Choi & Raymond Fisman & Douglas Gale & Shachar Kariv, 2007. "Consistency and Heterogeneity of Individual Behavior under Uncertainty," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1921-1938, December.
    11. Guido Baltussen & G. Post & Martijn Assem & Peter Wakker, 2012. "Random incentive systems in a dynamic choice experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(3), pages 418-443, September.
    12. Starmer, Chris & Sugden, Robert, 1991. "Does the Random-Lottery Incentive System Elicit True Preferences? An Experimental Investigation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(4), pages 971-978, September.
    13. Loewenstein, George & Thaler, Richard H, 1989. "Intertemporal Choice," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 3(4), pages 181-193, Fall.
    14. Glenn W. Harrison & Eric Johnson & Melayne M. McInnes & E. Elisabet Rutström, 2005. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(3), pages 897-901, June.
    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. Harin, Alexander, 2018. "Forbidden zones for the expectation of a random variable. New version 1," MPRA Paper 84248, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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. Harin, Alexander, 2015. "Problems of utility and prospect theories. A “certain–uncertain” inconsistency within their experimental methods," MPRA Paper 67911, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Harin, Alexander, 2015. "Is Prelec’s function discontinuous at p = 1? (for the Einhorn Award of SJDM)," MPRA Paper 64672, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Harin, Alexander, 2023. "To solve old problems of economics. The experimental background," MPRA Paper 117157, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Harin, Alexander, 2014. "Problems of utility and prospect theories. A ”certain-uncertain” inconsistency of the random-lottery incentive system," MPRA Paper 55706, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Cathleen Johnson & Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Zhihua Li & Dennie Dolder & Peter P. Wakker, 2021. "Prince: An improved method for measuring incentivized preferences," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 62(1), pages 1-28, February.
    6. Lisa R. Anderson & Beth A. Freeborn & Patrick McAlvanah & Andrew Turscak, 2023. "Pay every subject or pay only some?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 66(2), pages 161-188, April.
    7. Dohmen, Thomas, 2014. "Behavioral labor economics: Advances and future directions," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 71-85.
    8. Ferdinand M. Vieider & Peter Martinsson & Pham Khanh Nam & Nghi Truong, 2019. "Risk preferences and development revisited," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(1), pages 1-21, February.
    9. Galizzi, Matteo M. & Machado, Sara R. & Miniaci, Raffaele, 2016. "Temporal stability, cross-validity, and external validity of risk preferences measures: experimental evidence from a UK representative sample," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 67554, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    10. Friedman, Daniel & Habib, Sameh & James, Duncan & Crockett, Sean, 2018. "Varieties of risk elicitation," Discussion Papers, Research Professorship Market Design: Theory and Pragmatics SP II 2018-501, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    11. Menkhoff, Lukas & Sakha, Sahra, 2017. "Estimating risky behavior with multiple-item risk measures," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 59-86.
    12. Daniela Di Cagno & Daniela Grieco, 2019. "Measuring and Disentangling Ambiguity and Confidence in the Lab," Games, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-22, February.
    13. Ulrich Schmidt & Christian Seidl, 2014. "Reconsidering the common ratio effect: the roles of compound independence, reduction, and coalescing," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(3), pages 323-339, October.
    14. John D. Hey & Noemi Pace, 2018. "The explanatory and predictive power of non two-stage-probability theories of decision making under ambiguity," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 6, pages 139-167, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    15. Fred Schroyen & Karl Ove Aarbu, 2018. "Attitudes Towards Large Income Risk in Welfare States: An International Comparison," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 85(340), pages 846-872, October.
    16. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Halladay, Brianna, 2016. "Experimental methods: Pay one or pay all," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 131(PA), pages 141-150.
    17. James Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj & Ulrich Schmidt, 2015. "Paradoxes and mechanisms for choice under risk," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(2), pages 215-250, June.
    18. Jinkwon Lee & Uk Hwang, 2016. "Hypothetical Bias in Risk Preferences as a Driver of Hypothetical Bias in Willingness to Pay: Experimental Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(4), pages 789-811, December.
    19. Zuzana Brokesova & Cary Deck & Jana Peliova, 2016. "Bringing a Natural Experiment into the Laboratory: the Measurement of Individual Risk Attitudes," Working Papers 16-06, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    20. Giuseppe Attanasi & Christian Gollier & Aldo Montesano & Noemi Pace, 2014. "Eliciting ambiguity aversion in unknown and in compound lotteries: a smooth ambiguity model experimental study," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(4), pages 485-530, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    decision; utility; experiment; economics; management; psychology; business;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C1 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General
    • C9 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • D8 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    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:pra:mprapa:75311. 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.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.