IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ecj/econjl/v108y1998i447p477-89.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Probabilities vs Money: A Test of Some Fundamental Assumptions about Rational Decision Making

Author

Listed:
  • Loomes, Graham

Abstract

This paper describes an experiment where respondents were asked to tackle two decision tasks which were very similar in structure but which differed in that one problem involved direct money payoffs while the other involved payoffs in the form of probabilities of winning a given sum of money. According to most decision models, most risk averse individuals might be expected to behave quite differently under the two conditions. But the behavior actually observed does not accord with this expectation. The paper discusses possible reasons for this and the potential implications of such findings.

Suggested Citation

  • Loomes, Graham, 1998. "Probabilities vs Money: A Test of Some Fundamental Assumptions about Rational Decision Making," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 108(447), pages 477-489, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:ecj:econjl:v:108:y:1998:i:447:p:477-89
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yaron Azrieli & Christopher P. Chambers & Paul J. Healy, 2020. "Incentives in experiments with objective lotteries," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(1), pages 1-29, March.
    2. Etchart-Vincent, Nathalie, 2007. "Expérimentation de laboratoire et économie : contre quelques idées reçues et faux problèmes," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 83(1), pages 91-116, mars.
    3. Peter Wakker & Veronika Köbberling & Christiane Schwieren, 2007. "Prospect-theory’s Diminishing Sensitivity Versus Economics’ Intrinsic Utility of Money: How the Introduction of the Euro can be Used to Disentangle the Two Empirically," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 63(3), pages 205-231, November.
    4. Burgos, Albert, 1999. "Learning to deal with risk: what does reinforcement learning tell us about risk atittudes?," UC3M Working papers. Economics 6152, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía.
    5. Di Caprio, Debora & Santos-Arteaga, Francisco J., 2011. "Cardinal versus ordinal criteria in choice under risk with disconnected utility ranges," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(4-5), pages 588-594.
    6. Rubinstein, A., 2000. "A,A,A,A,A or A,A,B,C,D? Over-Diversification in Repeated Decision Problems," Papers 2000-10, Tel Aviv.
    7. Yaron Azrieli & Christopher P. Chambers & Paul J. Healy, 2018. "Incentives in Experiments: A Theoretical Analysis," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 126(4), pages 1472-1503.
    8. T. Parker Ballinger & Michael G. Palumbo & Nathaniel T. Wilcox, 2003. "Precautionary saving and social learning across generations: an experiment," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 113(490), pages 920-947, October.
    9. Albert Burgos, 2002. "Learning to deal with risk: what does reinforcement learning tell us about risk attitudes?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(10), pages 1-13.
    10. Vital Anderhub & Simon Gächter & Manfred Königstein, 2002. "Efficient Contracting and Fair Play in a Simple Principal-Agent Experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(1), pages 5-27, June.
    11. Butler, D. J., 2000. "Do non-expected utility choice patterns spring from hazy preferences? An experimental study of choice 'errors'," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 277-297, March.
    12. Christoph Kogler & Anton Kühberger, 2007. "Dual process theories: A key for understanding the diversification bias?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 145-154, April.
    13. Sofianos, Andis, 2022. "Self-reported & revealed trust: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    14. Janssen, Marco A. & Jager, Wander, 2000. "Preface," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 307-310, December.
    15. John Bone & John Hey & John Suckling, 2004. "A Simple Risk-Sharing Experiment," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 23-38, January.
    16. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:4:y:2002:i:10:p:1-13 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Glen Archibald & Nathaniel Wilcox, 2002. "A New Variant of the Winner's Curse in a Coasian Contracting Game," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(2), pages 155-172, October.
    18. Oyarzun, Carlos & Sanjurjo, Adam & Nguyen, Hien, 2017. "Response functions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 1-31.
    19. Rubinstein, Ariel, 2002. "Irrational diversification in multiple decision problems," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1369-1378, September.
    20. Kirchkamp, Oliver & Oechssler, Joerg & Sofianos, Andis, 2021. "The Binary Lottery Procedure does not induce risk neutrality in the Holt & Laury and Eckel & Grossman tasks," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 348-369.

    More about this item

    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:ecj:econjl:v:108:y:1998:i:447:p:477-89. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing or Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/resssea.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.