IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/lau/crdeep/09.09.html

Preference for Skew in Lotteries: Evidence from the Laboratory

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas Astebro
  • José Mata
  • Luis Santos-Pinto

Abstract

Using a laboratory experiment we investigate how skew inuences choices under risk. We find that subjects make significantly riskier choices when the distribution of payoffs is positively skewed, these choices being driven in part by the shape of the utility function but also by subjective distortion of probabilities. A utility model with probability distortion calibrated on laboratory data is able to explain why most gamblers in public lotteries buy only a small number of tickets.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:lau:crdeep:09.09
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.hec.unil.ch/deep/textes/09.09.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. John Griffin, 2015. "Risk Premia and Knightian Uncertainty in an Experimental Market Featuring a Long-Lived Asset," Fordham Economics Discussion Paper Series dp2015-01, Fordham University, Department of Economics.
    2. Matthew P. Taylor, 2020. "Liking the long-shot … but just as a friend," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 61(3), pages 245-261, December.
    3. John Griffin, 2015. "Risk Premia and Knightian Uncertainty in an Experimental Market Featuring a Long-Lived Asset," Fordham Economics Discussion Paper Series dp2015-01er:dp2015-01, Fordham University, Department of Economics.
    4. Mayrhofer, Thomas & Krieger, Miriam, 2012. "Patient Preferences and Treatment Thresholds under Diagnostic Risk: An Economic Laboratory Experiment," VfS Annual Conference 2012 (Goettingen): New Approaches and Challenges for the Labor Market of the 21st Century 62033, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    5. Lefebvre, Mathieu & Vieider, Ferdinand M. & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2010. "Incentive effects on risk attitude in small probability prospects," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 115-120, November.
    6. 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.
    7. Adhikari, Binay Kumar & Agrawal, Anup, 2016. "Religion, gambling attitudes and corporate innovation," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 229-248.
    8. Colasante, Annarita & Riccetti, Luca, 2020. "Risk aversion, prudence and temperance: It is a matter of gap between moments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 25(C).
    9. John Morgan & Henrik Orzen & Martin Sefton & Dana Sisak, 2016. "Strategic and Natural Risk in Entrepreneurship: An Experimental Study," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(2), pages 420-454, April.
    10. Young-Il Kim & Jungmin Lee, 2012. "Estimating Risk Aversion Using Individual-Level Survey Data," Korean Economic Review, Korean Economic Association, vol. 28, pages 221-239.
    11. Luciano Somoza & Antoine Didisheim, 2022. "The End of the Crypto-Diversification Myth," Swiss Finance Institute Research Paper Series 22-53, Swiss Finance Institute.
    12. 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.
    13. Colasante, Annarita & Riccetti, Luca, 2021. "Financial and non-financial risk attitudes: What does it matter?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 30(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

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

    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:lau:crdeep:09.09. 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.

    We have no bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christina Seld (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deelsch.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.