IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jrisku/v7y1993i2p199-213.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Implementing and Testing Risk-Preference-Induction Mechanisms in Experimental Sealed-Bid Auctions

Author

Listed:
  • Rietz, Thomas A

Abstract

Risk-preference-inducing lottery procedures can serve as valuable tools for experimental economists. However, questioning their effectiveness, experimenters may avoid them even when predictions and conclusions depend crucially on risk preferences. Here, I review risk-preference-induction attempts in sealed-bid auctions, discussing factors that promote or hinder success. Making the procedure very transparent and having subjects learn about it in simple environments promote success. Hysteresis resulting from switching between monetary payoffs and lottery procedures in one environment hinders success. Thus, lottery procedures appear sensitive to the implementation. However, implemented carefully, they can generate behavior consistent with the intended preferences. Copyright 1993 by Kluwer Academic Publishers

Suggested Citation

  • Rietz, Thomas A, 1993. "Implementing and Testing Risk-Preference-Induction Mechanisms in Experimental Sealed-Bid Auctions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 199-213, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:jrisku:v:7:y:1993:i:2:p:199-213
    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. Boris Maciejovsky & Tarek El-Sehitya & Hans Haumerb & Christian Helmensteinc & Erich Kirchlerd, "undated". "Hindsight Bias and Individual Risk Attitude within the Context of Experimental Asset Markets," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2002-16, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    2. Harrison, Glenn W. & Martínez-Correa, Jimmy & Swarthout, J. Todd, 2013. "Inducing risk neutral preferences with binary lotteries: A reconsideration," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 145-159.
    3. Mrinal Ghosh & George John, 2000. "Experimental Evidence for Agency Models of Salesforce Compensation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 348-365, August.
    4. Sabater-Grande, Gerardo & Georgantzis, Nikolaos, 2002. "Accounting for risk aversion in repeated prisoners' dilemma games: an experimental test," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 37-50, May.
    5. Martin Weber & Werner G³th & Eric van Damme, 2005. "Risk Aversion on Probabilities: Experimental Evidence of Deciding Between Lotteries," Homo Oeconomicus, Institute of SocioEconomics, vol. 22, pages 192-209.
    6. Kaushal Chari & Manish Agrawal, 2007. "Multi-Issue Automated Negotiations Using Agents," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 588-595, November.
    7. James C. Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj, 2018. "Incentives," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2018-01, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    8. John Van Huyck & Frederick Rankin & Raymond Battalio, 1999. "What Does it Take to Eliminate the use of a Strategy Strictly Dominated by a Mixture?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 2(2), pages 129-150, December.
    9. Berg, Joyce E. & Dickhaut, John W. & Rietz, Thomas A., 2013. "The “play-out” effect and preference reversals: Evidence for noisy maximization," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 160-171.
    10. Agranov, Marina & Tergiman, Chloe, 2013. "Incentives and compensation schemes: An experimental study," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 238-247.

    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:kap:jrisku:v:7:y:1993:i:2:p:199-213. 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: (Sonal Shukla) or (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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 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.

    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.