The St. Petersburg Paradox despite risk-seeking preferences: An experimental study
The St. Petersburg is one of the oldest violations of expected utility theory. Thus far, explanations of the paradox aim at small probabili- ties being perceived as zero and the boundedness of utility. This paper provides experimental results showing that neither risk attitudes nor perception of small probabilities explain the paradox. We nd that even in situations where subjects are risk-seeking, the St. Petersburg Paradox exists. This indicates that the paradox lies at the very core of human decision-making processes and cannot be explained by the parameters discussed in previous research so far.
|Date of creation:||Jan 2009|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Universitätsplatz 2, Gebäude W und I, 39106 Magdeburg|
Phone: (0391) 67-18 584
Fax: (0391) 67-12 120
Web page: http://www.ww.uni-magdeburg.de
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Brito, D. L., 1975. "Becker's theory of the allocation of time and the St. Petersburg Paradox," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 123-126, February.
- Samuelson, Paul A, 1977. "St. Petersburg Paradoxes: Defanged, Dissected, and Historically Described," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 15(1), pages 24-55, March.
- 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.
- Eike B. Kroll & Bodo Vogt, 2008. "Loss Aversion for time: An experimental investigation of time preferences," FEMM Working Papers 08027, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.
- James C. Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj & Bodo Vogt, 2009.
"On the empirical relevance of st. petersburg lotteries,"
AccessEcon, vol. 29(1), pages 214-220.
- James C. Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj & Bodo Vogt, 2008. "On the Empirical Relevance of St.Petersburg Lotteries," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2008-05, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University, revised Jan 2009.
- Shapley, Lloyd S., 1977. "The St. Petersburg paradox: A con games?," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 439-442, April.
- James C. Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj & Bodo Vogt & Utteeyo Dasgupta, 2007. "Is There A Plausible Theory for Risky Decisions?," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2007-05, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University, revised Apr 2008.
- Grether, David M & Plott, Charles R, 1979. "Economic Theory of Choice and the Preference Reversal Phenomenon," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(4), pages 623-638, September.
- Grether, David M. & Plott, Charles R., "undated". "Economic Theory of Choice and the Preference Reversal Phenomenon," Working Papers 152, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
- Henry S. Farber, 2008. "Reference-Dependent Preferences and Labor Supply: The Case of New York City Taxi Drivers," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(3), pages 1069-1082, June. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)