House money effects, risk preferences and the public goods game
This paper investigates whether risk preferences inform the decision of how much to put into the public account in the public goods game under the three different frames (the two house money effect frames: the standard and covered-loss frames, as well as the real-loss frame). The main contribution of this paper finds that the covered loss and real loss treatments are statistically equivalent. This assures researchers that just introducing the notion of loss into an experimental treatment without the need for participants to realize a real loss is still a valid experimental instrument. We also find that the house money effect is a better explanation for the difference in contributions between gain and loss framing than loss aversion.
If 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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
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.:
- Houser, Daniel & Schunk, Daniel & Winter, Joachim, 2010.
"Distinguishing trust from risk: An anatomy of the investment game,"
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,
Elsevier, vol. 74(1-2), pages 72-81, May.
- Houser, Daniel & Schunk, Daniel & Winter, Joachim, 2010. "Distinguishing trust from risk: An anatomy of the investment game," Munich Reprints in Economics 19378, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
- Daniel Houser & Daniel Schunk & Joachim Winter, 2009. "Distinguishing trust from risk: an anatomy of the investment game," IEW - Working Papers 450, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
- Shunichiro Sasaki & Shiyu Xie & Fumio OhtakeAuthor-Name: & Jie Qin & Yoshiro Tsutsui, 2006.
"Experiments on Risk Attitude: The Case of Chinese Students,"
ISER Discussion Paper
0664, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
- Sasaki, Shunichiro & Xie, Shiyu & Ohtake, Fumio & Qin, Jie & Tsutsui, Yoshiro, 2008. "Experiments on risk attitude: The case of Chinese students," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 245-259, June.
- Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1979.
"Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
7656, David K. Levine.
- Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-91, March.
- Glenn Harrison, 2007. "House money effects in public good experiments: Comment," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 429-437, December.
- Eckel, Catherine C. & Wilson, Rick K., 2004. "Is trust a risky decision?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 55(4), pages 447-465, December.
- Nathalie Etchart-Vincent & Olivier l’Haridon, 2011. "Monetary incentives in the loss domain and behavior toward risk: An experimental comparison of three reward schemes including real losses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 61-83, February.
- 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.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:120:y:2013:i:2:p:310-313. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.