IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/cesptp/hal-01368197.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Risk aversion in prediction markets: A framed-field experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Béatrice Boulu-Reshef

    (CES - Centre d'économie de la Sorbonne - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Irene Comeig
  • Robert Donze
  • Gregory D. Weiss

Abstract

To make better decisions today, companies and other economic agents are interested in getting accurate predictions of future events. Prediction markets can, at least potentially, give those accurate forecasts for the probability of the event by aggregating information from traders. However, formal studies highlight that the risk attitudes of market participants may bias the market equilibrium prices, and consequently make the prediction unreliable. This research examines the effect of participants' risk attitudes on prediction market prices, through a framed field experiment on the two semifinals at the 2015 NCAA Men's Division Basketball Tournament. The results of the experiment show a significant price difference between the risk-averse group and the less risk-averse group. The large price discrepancy between markets with participants with varying risk aversion suggests that risk aversion deserves a critical consideration in future prediction-market research and implementation.

Suggested Citation

  • Béatrice Boulu-Reshef & Irene Comeig & Robert Donze & Gregory D. Weiss, 2016. "Risk aversion in prediction markets: A framed-field experiment," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-01368197, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:cesptp:hal-01368197
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.082
    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.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Deck, Cary & Lin, Shengle & Porter, David, 2013. "Affecting policy by manipulating prediction markets: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 48-62.
    2. Alison L. Booth & Patrick Nolen, 2012. "Gender differences in risk behaviour: does nurture matter?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 122(558), pages 56-78, February.
    3. Manski, Charles F., 2006. "Interpreting the predictions of prediction markets," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 91(3), pages 425-429, June.
    4. Joyce E. Berg & George R. Neumann & Thomas A. Rietz, 2009. "Searching for Google's Value: Using Prediction Markets to Forecast Market Capitalization Prior to an Initial Public Offering," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(3), pages 348-361, March.
    5. Wolfers, Justin & Zitzewitz, Eric, 2006. "Interpreting Prediction Market Prices as Probabilities," IZA Discussion Papers 2092, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Kamas, Linda & Preston, Anne, 2012. "The importance of being confident; gender, career choice, and willingness to compete," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 82-97.
    7. Justin Wolfers & Eric Zitzewitz, 2004. "Prediction Markets," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 18(2), pages 107-126, Spring.
    8. Jacobsen, Ben & Potters, Jan & Schram, Arthur & van Winden, Frans & Wit, Jorgen, 2000. "(In)accuracy of a European political stock market: The influence of common value structures," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 205-230, February.
    9. Cary Deck & David Porter, 2013. "Prediction Markets In The Laboratory," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 589-603, July.
    10. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Imas, Alex, 2013. "Experimental methods: Eliciting risk preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 43-51.
    11. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri, 2012. "Strong Evidence for Gender Differences in Risk Taking," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 50-58.
    12. Eckel, Catherine C. & Grossman, Philip J., 2008. "Men, Women and Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, in: Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 113, pages 1061-1073, Elsevier.
    13. Gregor Bruggelambert, 2004. "Information and efficiency in political stock markets: using computerized markets to predict election results," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(7), pages 753-768.
    14. Ali, Mukhtar M, 1977. "Probability and Utility Estimates for Racetrack Bettors," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 85(4), pages 803-815, August.
    15. Comeig, Irene & Grau-Grau, Alfredo & Jaramillo-Gutiérrez, Ainhoa & Ramírez, Federico, 2016. "Gender, self-confidence, sports, and preferences for competition," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(4), pages 1418-1422.
    16. Lian Jian & Rahul Sami, 2012. "Aggregation and Manipulation in Prediction Markets: Effects of Trading Mechanism and Information Distribution," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(1), pages 123-140, January.
    17. Berg, Joyce & Forsythe, Robert & Nelson, Forrest & Rietz, Thomas, 2008. "Results from a Dozen Years of Election Futures Markets Research," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, in: Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 80, pages 742-751, Elsevier.
    18. Julie A. Nelson, 2016. "Not-So-Strong Evidence for Gender Differences in Risk Taking," Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(2), pages 114-142, April.
    19. 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.
    20. Marco Ottaviani & Peter Norman Sørensen, 2007. "Outcome Manipulation in Corporate Prediction Markets," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 5(2-3), pages 554-563, 04-05.
    21. Irene Comeig & Charles A. Holt & Ainhoa Jaramillo-Gutiérrez, 2015. "Dealing with risk: Gender, stakes, and probability effects," Discussion Papers in Economic Behaviour 0215, University of Valencia, ERI-CES.
    22. Irene Comeig & Ainhoa Jaramillo-Gutiérrez & Federico Ramírez, 2013. "Do women self-select as good borrowers?," Working Papers 2013/14, Economics Department, Universitat Jaume I, Castellón (Spain).
    23. Rachel Croson & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Gender Differences in Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 448-474, June.
    24. Motes, William H. & Woodside, Arch G., 2001. "Purchase experiments of extra-ordinary and regular influence strategies using artificial and real brands," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 15-35, July.
    25. Berg, Joyce E. & Nelson, Forrest D. & Rietz, Thomas A., 2008. "Prediction market accuracy in the long run," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 285-300.
    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. Cécile Bourreau-Dubois & Myriam Doriat-Duban & Bruno Jeandidier & Jean-Claude Ray, 2023. "Do child support guidelines result in lower inter-judge disparity? The case of the French advisory child support guidelines," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 55(1), pages 87-116, February.
    2. Jérôme Boutang & Michel de Lara, 2016. "Risk Marketing," Working Papers hal-01353821, HAL.
    3. Cécile Bourreau-Dubois & Myriam Doriat-Duban & Bruno Jeandidier & Jean Claude Ray, 2020. "Do sentencing guidelines result in lower inter-judge disparity? Evidence from framed field experiment," Working Papers of BETA 2020-28, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    4. Cécile Bourreau-Dubois & Myriam Doriat-Duban & Bruno Jeandidier & Jean Ray, 2020. "Do sentencing guidelines result in lower inter-judge disparity ? Evidence from framed field experiment," Working Papers hal-02978348, HAL.
    5. Irene Comeig & Ainhoa Jaramillo-Gutiérrez & Federico Ramírez, 2017. "Toward Value Co-Creation: Increasing Women’s Presence in Management Positions through Competition against a Set Target," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-10, October.
    6. Cécile Bourreau-Dubois & Myriam Doriat-Duban & Bruno Jeandidier & Jean Claude Ray, 2020. "Do sentencing guidelines result in lower inter-judge disparity? Evidence from framed field experiment," Working Papers of BETA 2020-28, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.

    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. Irene Comeig & Charles A. Holt & Ainhoa Jaramillo-Gutiérrez, 2015. "Dealing with risk: Gender, stakes, and probability effects," Discussion Papers in Economic Behaviour 0215, University of Valencia, ERI-CES.
    2. Joyce E. Berg & John Geweke & Thomas A. Rietz, 2010. "Memoirs of an indifferent trader: Estimating forecast distributions from prediction markets," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 1(1), pages 163-186, July.
    3. Irene Comeig & Ainhoa Jaramillo-Gutiérrez & Federico Ramírez, 2017. "Toward Value Co-Creation: Increasing Women’s Presence in Management Positions through Competition against a Set Target," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-10, October.
    4. Patrick Buckley & Fergal O’Brien, 0. "The effect of malicious manipulations on prediction market accuracy," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-13.
    5. Coulomb, Renaud & Sangnier, Marc, 2014. "The impact of political majorities on firm value: Do electoral promises or friendship connections matter?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 158-170.
    6. Lamiraud, Karine & Vranceanu , Radu, 2015. "Group Gender Composition and Economic Decision-Making," ESSEC Working Papers WP1515, ESSEC Research Center, ESSEC Business School.
    7. Patrick Buckley & Fergal O’Brien, 2017. "The effect of malicious manipulations on prediction market accuracy," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 611-623, June.
    8. Snowberg, Erik & Wolfers, Justin & Zitzewitz, Eric, 2013. "Prediction Markets for Economic Forecasting," Handbook of Economic Forecasting, in: G. Elliott & C. Granger & A. Timmermann (ed.), Handbook of Economic Forecasting, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 657-687, Elsevier.
    9. Crosetto, P. & Filippin, A., 2017. "Safe options induce gender differences in risk attitudes," Working Papers 2017-05, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).
    10. Hillesland, Marya, 2019. "Gender differences in risk behavior: An analysis of asset allocation decisions in Ghana," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 127-137.
    11. Holden, Stein T. & Tilahun, Mesfin, 2022. "Are risk preferences explaining gender differences in investment behavior?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    12. Kiss, Hubert J. & Kóczy, László Á. & Pintér, Ágnes & Sziklai, Balázs R., 2022. "Does risk sorting explain overpricing in experimental asset markets?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    13. Horn, Dániel & Kiss, Hubert János & Lénárd, Tünde, 2022. "Gender differences in preferences of adolescents: Evidence from a large-scale classroom experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 478-522.
    14. Anwesha Bandyopadhyay & Lutfunnahar Begum & Philip J. Grossman, 2021. "Gender differences in the stability of risk attitudes," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 63(2), pages 169-201, October.
    15. Abdelkrim Araar & Yesuf Mohammednur Awel & Jonse Bane Boka & Hiywot Menker & Ajebush Shafi & Eleni Abraham Yitbarek & Mulatu Zerihun, 2019. "Entrepreneurs’ Attitudes Toward Risk in Micro and Small Enterprises: Evidence from Urban Ethiopia," Working Papers PMMA 2019-05, PEP-PMMA.
    16. Paolo Crosetto & Antonio Filippin, 2013. "A Theoretical and Experimental Appraisal of Five Risk Elicitation Methods," Jena Economics Research Papers 2013-009, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    17. Cueva, Carlos & Rustichini, Aldo, 2015. "Is financial instability male-driven? Gender and cognitive skills in experimental asset markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 330-344.
    18. Paul J. Healy & Sera Linardi & J. Richard Lowery & John O. Ledyard, 2010. "Prediction Markets: Alternative Mechanisms for Complex Environments with Few Traders," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(11), pages 1977-1996, November.
    19. Marco Castillo & Greg Leo & Ragan Petrie, 2020. "Room composition effects on risk taking by gender," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(3), pages 895-911, September.
    20. Gary Charness & Catherine Eckel & Uri Gneezy & Agne Kajackaite, 2018. "Complexity in risk elicitation may affect the conclusions: A demonstration using gender differences," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 1-17, February.

    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:hal:cesptp:hal-01368197. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.