IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/joepsy/v20y1999i6p699-715.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk, complexity, and deviations from expected-value maximization: Results of a lottery choice experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Huck, Steffen
  • Weizsacker, Georg

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Huck, Steffen & Weizsacker, Georg, 1999. "Risk, complexity, and deviations from expected-value maximization: Results of a lottery choice experiment," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 699-715, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:joepsy:v:20:y:1999:i:6:p:699-715
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167-4870(99)00031-8
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hey, John D & Orme, Chris, 1994. "Investigating Generalizations of Expected Utility Theory Using Experimental Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(6), pages 1291-1326, November.
    2. Wilcox, Nathaniel T, 1993. "Lottery Choice: Incentives, Complexity and Decision Time," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 103(421), pages 1397-1417, November.
    3. McKelvey Richard D. & Palfrey Thomas R., 1995. "Quantal Response Equilibria for Normal Form Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 6-38, July.
    4. Schoemaker, Paul J H, 1993. "Determinants of Risk-Taking: Behavioral and Economic Views," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 49-73, January.
    5. Harless, David W & Camerer, Colin F, 1994. "The Predictive Utility of Generalized Expected Utility Theories," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(6), pages 1251-1289, November.
    6. Hey, John D., 1995. "Experimental investigations of errors in decision making under risk," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 39(3-4), pages 633-640, April.
    7. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1986. "Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 251-278, October.
    8. Frederick Mosteller & Philip Nogee, 1951. "An Experimental Measurement of Utility," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59, pages 371-371.
    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. Kai Duttle & Keigo Inukai, 2015. "Complexity Aversion: Influences of Cognitive Abilities, Culture and System of Thought," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 35(2), pages 846-855.
    2. Andersson, Ola & Tyran, Jean-Robert & Wengström, Erik & Holm, Håkan J., 2013. "Risk Aversion Relates to Cognitive Ability: Fact or Fiction?," Working Paper Series 964, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    3. repec:kap:expeco:v:20:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s10683-016-9486-z is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Bayer, Ralph-C. & Ke, Changxia, 2013. "Discounts and consumer search behavior: The role of framing," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 215-224.
    5. Kenan Kalaycı & Marta Serra-Garcia, 2016. "Complexity and biases," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(1), pages 31-50, March.
    6. Mathieu Lefebvre & Ferdinand Vieider & Marie Villeval, 2011. "The ratio bias phenomenon: fact or artifact?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(4), pages 615-641, October.
    7. Doron Sonsino, 2011. "A note on negativity bias and framing response asymmetry," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(2), pages 235-250, August.
    8. Steffen Huck & Tobias Schmidt & Georg Weizsäcker, 2014. "The Standard Portfolio Choice Problem in Germany," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 650, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    9. Peter Moffatt & Stefania Sitzia & Daniel Zizzo, 2015. "Heterogeneity in preferences towards complexity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 147-170, October.
    10. Muller, Wieland, 2001. "Strategies, heuristics, and the relevance of risk-aversion in a dynamic decision problem," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 493-522, August.
    11. Daniel J. Benjamin & Sebastian A. Brown & Jesse M. Shapiro, 2013. "Who Is ‘Behavioral’? Cognitive Ability And Anomalous Preferences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 11(6), pages 1231-1255, December.
    12. Emma Boswell Dean & Frank Schilbach & Heather Schofield, 2017. "Poverty and Cognitive Function," NBER Chapters,in: The Economics of Poverty Traps National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Steven Humphrey & Paul Mann & Chris Starmer, 2005. "Testing for feedback-conditional regret effects using a natural lottery," Discussion Papers 2005-07, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    14. Kent Grote & Victor Matheson, 2011. "The Economics of Lotteries: An Annotated Bibliography," Working Papers 1110, College of the Holy Cross, Department of Economics.
    15. Dohmen, Thomas & Falk, Armin & Huffman, David & Sunde, Uwe, 2018. "On the Relationship Between Cognitive Ability and Risk Preference," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 76, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    16. Rey-Biel, Pedro, 2009. "Equilibrium play and best response to (stated) beliefs in normal form games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 572-585, March.
    17. Dietmar Fehr & Steffen Huck, 2016. "Who knows it is a game? On strategic awareness and cognitive ability," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(4), pages 713-726, December.
    18. Stefania Sitzia & Daniel Zizzo, 2011. "Does product complexity matter for competition in experimental retail markets?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 70(1), pages 65-82, January.
    19. Doron Sonsino & Marvin Mandelbaum, 2001. "On Preference for Flexibility and Complexity Aversion: Experimental Evidence 1," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 197-216, December.
    20. Fehr, Dietmar & Huck, Steffen, 2013. "Who knows It is a game? On rule understanding, strategic awareness and cognitive ability," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Economics of Change SP II 2013-306, Social Science Research Center Berlin (WZB).

    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:eee:joepsy:v:20:y:1999:i:6:p:699-715. 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: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/joep .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.