IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp4545.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Incentive Effects on Risk Attitude in Small Probability Prospects

Author

Listed:
  • Lefèbvre, Mathieu

    (Aix Marseille School of Economics)

  • Vieider, Ferdinand M.

    (CNRS, GATE)

  • Villeval, Marie Claire

    (CNRS, GATE)

Abstract

Most studies on the role of incentives on risk attitude report data obtained from within-subject experimental investigations. This may however raise an issue of sequentiality of effects as later choices may be influenced by earlier ones. This paper reports instead between-subject results on the effect of monetary stakes on risk attitudes for small probability prospects in a laboratory experiment. Under low stakes, we find the typical risk seeking behavior for small probabilities predicted by the prospect theory. But under high stakes, we provide some evidence that risk seeking behavior is dramatically reduced. This could suggest that utility is not consistently concave over the outcome space, but rather contains a convex section for very small amounts.

Suggested Citation

  • Lefèbvre, Mathieu & Vieider, Ferdinand M. & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2009. "Incentive Effects on Risk Attitude in Small Probability Prospects," IZA Discussion Papers 4545, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
  • Handle: RePEc:iza:izadps:dp4545
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://docs.iza.org/dp4545.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bradley, Ian, 2003. "The representative bettor, bet size, and prospect theory," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 78(3), pages 409-413, March.
    2. Drazen Prelec & George Loewenstein, 1991. "Decision Making Over Time and Under Uncertainty: A Common Approach," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(7), pages 770-786, July.
    3. Hans P. Binswanger, 1980. "Attitudes Toward Risk: Experimental Measurement in Rural India," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 62(3), pages 395-407.
    4. Thomas B. Astebro & Luís Santos-Pinto & J. Mata, 2009. "Preferences for Skew," Post-Print hal-00654369, HAL.
    5. Camerer, Colin F & Hogarth, Robin M, 1999. "The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 7-42, December.
    6. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Han Bleichrodt & Olivier L’Haridon, 2008. "A tractable method to measure utility and loss aversion under prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 245-266, June.
    7. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Luis Pinto, 2000. "A Parameter-Free Elicitation of the Probability Weighting Function in Medical Decision Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(11), pages 1485-1496, November.
    8. Booij, Adam S. & van de Kuilen, Gijs, 2009. "A parameter-free analysis of the utility of money for the general population under prospect theory," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 651-666, August.
    9. Harry Markowitz, 1952. "The Utility of Wealth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 60, pages 151-151.
    10. Johansson-Stenman, Olof & Mahmud, Minhaj & Martinsson, Peter, 2005. "Does stake size matter in trust games?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 88(3), pages 365-369, September.
    11. 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.
    12. Kocher, Martin G. & Martinsson, Peter & Visser, Martine, 2008. "Does stake size matter for cooperation and punishment?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 99(3), pages 508-511, June.
    13. Thomas Astebro & José Mata & Luis Santos-Pinto, 2009. "Preference for Skew in Lotteries: Evidence from the Laboratory," Cahiers de Recherches Economiques du Département d'économie 09.09, Université de Lausanne, Faculté des HEC, Département d’économie.
    14. Kuhberger, Anton & Schulte-Mecklenbeck, Michael & Perner, Josef, 2002. "Framing decisions: Hypothetical and real," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 1162-1175, November.
    15. 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.
    16. Kachelmeier, Steven J & Shehata, Mohamed, 1992. "Examining Risk Preferences under High Monetary Incentives: Experimental Evidence from the People's Republic of China," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(5), pages 1120-1141, December.
    17. Sawyer, Alan G, 1975. "Demand Artifacts in Laboratory Experiments in Consumer Research," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 1(4), pages 20-30, March.
    18. Bosch-Domenech, Antoni & Silvestre, Joaquim, 1999. "Does risk aversion or attraction depend on income? An experiment," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 265-273, December.
    19. Weber, Bethany J. & Chapman, Gretchen B., 2005. "Playing for peanuts: Why is risk seeking more common for low-stakes gambles?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 97(1), pages 31-46, May.
    20. George Wu & Richard Gonzalez, 1996. "Curvature of the Probability Weighting Function," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(12), pages 1676-1690, December.
    21. Greiner, Ben, 2004. "An Online Recruitment System for Economic Experiments," MPRA Paper 13513, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    22. Battalio, Raymond C & Kagel, John H & Jiranyakul, Komain, 1990. "Testing between Alternative Models of Choice under Uncertainty: Some Initial Results," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 25-50, March.
    23. Mohammed Abdellaoui, 2000. "Parameter-Free Elicitation of Utility and Probability Weighting Functions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(11), pages 1497-1512, November.
    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. Vieider, Ferdinand M., 2012. "Moderate stake variations for risk and uncertainty, gains and losses: Methodological implications for comparative studies," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 117(3), pages 718-721.
    2. Asheem Shrestha & Jolanta Tamošaitienė & Igor Martek & M Reza Hosseini & David J Edwards, 2019. "A Principal-Agent Theory Perspective on PPP Risk Allocation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-18, November.
    3. Ranoua Bouchouicha & Peter Martinsson & Haileselassie Medhin & Ferdinand M. Vieider, 2017. "Stake effects on ambiguity attitudes for gains and losses," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 83(1), pages 19-35, June.
    4. Julius Pahlke & Sebastian Strasser & Ferdinand Vieider, 2015. "Responsibility effects in decision making under risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 125-146, October.
    5. Ferdinand M. Vieider & Clara Villegas-Palacio & Peter Martinsson & Milagros Mejía, 2016. "Risk Taking For Oneself And Others: A Structural Model Approach," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 54(2), pages 879-894, April.
    6. Isaiah Andrews & Drew Fudenberg & Lihua Lei & Annie Liang & Chaofeng Wu, 2022. "The Transfer Performance of Economic Models," Papers 2202.04796, arXiv.org, revised May 2023.
    7. Vieider, Ferdinand M. & Chmura, Thorsten & Martinsson, Peter, 2012. "Risk attitudes, development, and growth: Macroeconomic evidence from experiments in 30 countries," Discussion Papers, WZB Junior Research Group Risk and Development SP II 2012-401, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    8. Vieider, Ferdinand M. & Cingl, Lubomír & Martinsson, Peter & Stojic, Hrvoje, 2013. "Separating attitudes towards money from attitudes towards probabilities: Stake effects and ambiguity as a test for prospect theory," Discussion Papers, WZB Junior Research Group Risk and Development SP II 2013-401, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    9. Faravelli, Marco & Stanca, Luca, 2012. "Single versus multiple-prize all-pay auctions to finance public goods: An experimental analysis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 677-688.
    10. Ferdinand M. Vieider & Mathieu Lefebvre & Ranoua Bouchouicha & Thorsten Chmura & Rustamdjan Hakimov & Michal Krawczyk & Peter Martinsson, 2015. "Common Components Of Risk And Uncertainty Attitudes Across Contexts And Domains: Evidence From 30 Countries," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 13(3), pages 421-452, June.
    11. Despoina Alempaki & Emina Canic & Timothy L. Mullett & William J. Skylark & Chris Starmer & Neil Stewart & Fabio Tufano, 2019. "Reexamining How Utility and Weighting Functions Get Their Shapes: A Quasi-Adversarial Collaboration Providing a New Interpretation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(10), pages 4841-4862, October.
    12. Schlüter, Maja & Baeza, Andres & Dressler, Gunnar & Frank, Karin & Groeneveld, Jürgen & Jager, Wander & Janssen, Marco A. & McAllister, Ryan R.J. & Müller, Birgit & Orach, Kirill & Schwarz, Nina & Wij, 2017. "A framework for mapping and comparing behavioural theories in models of social-ecological systems," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 21-35.

    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. 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.
    2. Adam Booij & Bernard Praag & Gijs Kuilen, 2010. "A parametric analysis of prospect theory’s functionals for the general population," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 115-148, February.
    3. Booij, Adam S. & van de Kuilen, Gijs, 2009. "A parameter-free analysis of the utility of money for the general population under prospect theory," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 651-666, August.
    4. Helga Fehr-Duda & Adrian Bruhin & Thomas Epper & Renate Schubert, 2010. "Rationality on the rise: Why relative risk aversion increases with stake size," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 147-180, April.
    5. Vieider, Ferdinand M. & Truong, Nghi & Martinsson, Peter & Pham Khanh Nam & Martinsson, Peter, 2013. "Risk preferences and development revisited: A field experiment in Vietnam," Discussion Papers, WZB Junior Research Group Risk and Development SP II 2013-403, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    6. Peter Brooks & Horst Zank, 2005. "Loss Averse Behavior," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 301-325, December.
    7. D. A. Peel & Jie Zhang & D. Law, 2008. "The Markowitz model of utility supplemented with a small degree of probability distortion as an explanation of outcomes of Allais experiments over large and small payoffs and gambling on unlikely outc," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(1), pages 17-26.
    8. James Andreoni & Charles Sprenger, 2011. "Uncertainty Equivalents: Testing the Limits of the Independence Axiom," NBER Working Papers 17342, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Julius Pahlke & Sebastian Strasser & Ferdinand Vieider, 2015. "Responsibility effects in decision making under risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 125-146, October.
    10. Ferdinand M. Vieider & Peter Martinsson & Pham Khanh Nam & Nghi Truong, 2019. "Risk preferences and development revisited," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(1), pages 1-21, February.
    11. Arnaud Reynaud & Stéphane Couture, 2012. "Stability of risk preference measures: results from a field experiment on French farmers," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(2), pages 203-221, August.
    12. Ferdinand M. Vieider & Clara Villegas-Palacio & Peter Martinsson & Milagros Mejía, 2016. "Risk Taking For Oneself And Others: A Structural Model Approach," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 54(2), pages 879-894, April.
    13. Peter Brooks & Simon Peters & Horst Zank, 2014. "Risk behavior for gain, loss, and mixed prospects," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(2), pages 153-182, August.
    14. Emin Karagözoğlu & Ümit Barış Urhan, 2017. "The Effect of Stake Size in Experimental Bargaining and Distribution Games: A Survey," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 285-325, March.
    15. Horst Zank, 2010. "On probabilities and loss aversion," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(3), pages 243-261, March.
    16. Marc Scholten & Daniel Read, 2014. "Prospect theory and the “forgotten” fourfold pattern of risk preferences," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 67-83, February.
    17. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Han Bleichrodt & Olivier L’Haridon, 2008. "A tractable method to measure utility and loss aversion under prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 245-266, June.
    18. Goeree, Jacob K. & Holt, Charles A. & Palfrey, Thomas R., 2002. "Quantal Response Equilibrium and Overbidding in Private-Value Auctions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 104(1), pages 247-272, May.
    19. Ferdinand M. Vieider & Mathieu Lefebvre & Ranoua Bouchouicha & Thorsten Chmura & Rustamdjan Hakimov & Michal Krawczyk & Peter Martinsson, 2015. "Common Components Of Risk And Uncertainty Attitudes Across Contexts And Domains: Evidence From 30 Countries," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 13(3), pages 421-452, June.
    20. Campos-Vazquez, Raymundo M. & Cuilty, Emilio, 2014. "The role of emotions on risk aversion: A Prospect Theory experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 1-9.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    decision; incentives; risk attitude; experiment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • D89 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Other

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:iza:izadps:dp4545. 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: Holger Hinte (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/izaaade.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.