IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ngi/dpaper/15-24.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Experiments on Lotteries for Shrouded and Bundled Goods: Investigating The Economics of Fukubukuro

Author

Listed:
  • Chaikal Nuryakin

    (Faculty of Economics, Universitas Indonesia)

  • Alistair Munro

    (National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies)

Abstract

Fukubukuro (or lucky bag) is a familiar institution in Japan and many other countries used by retailers for disposing of unwanted stock during the New Year sales. Two features of the institution are important: First, in fukubukuro, stores bundle goods of related items into sealed bags rather than selling items separately. Secondly, while general information about the contents is provided, details of brands and specifications are concealed creating a lottery for the purchaser. Motivated by the fukubukuro example and the lack of evidence on risk attitudes in lotteries involving goods, we conduct a laboratory experiment and follow-up survey to investigate preferences for lotteries in which the outcomes are bundled or unbundled goods. In general, we find that risk has a negative effect on subjects’ WTP for a product lottery. Nevertheless, a minority of subjects are risk-seeking and value the lottery more highly than the highest valued individual product. Conversely, we do not find much evidence of an uncertainty effect. Although subjects’ WTP responses to bundled product lotteries are less heterogeneous than their responses to single product lotteries, there is no significant advantage of selling bundled product lotteries over single product lotteries in relation to subjects’ risk preferences. We follow up the experiment with a hypothetical choice questionnaire in which we confront subjects with three options for a variety of goods: a certain product, its substitute, and a product lottery. We find that subjects who are riskseeking or have less product knowledge and familiarity are more likely to choose a product lottery. Furthermore, subjects are more likely to choose a product lottery when the choice task consists of complex products rather than simple products. We speculate that risk seeking and less-informed subjects may find a lottery between products to be a direct and simple way to solve their buying decision tasks.

Suggested Citation

  • Chaikal Nuryakin & Alistair Munro, 2016. "Experiments on Lotteries for Shrouded and Bundled Goods: Investigating The Economics of Fukubukuro," GRIPS Discussion Papers 15-24, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies.
  • Handle: RePEc:ngi:dpaper:15-24
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://grips.repo.nii.ac.jp/?action=repository_action_common_download&item_id=1340&item_no=1&attribute_id=20&file_no=1
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chaikal Nuryakin & Alistair Munro, 2019. "Experiments on lotteries for shrouded and bundled goods: Investigating the economics of fukubukuro," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 70(2), pages 168-188, June.
    2. Loomes, Graham & Moffatt, Peter G & Sugden, Robert, 2002. "A Microeconometric Test of Alternative Stochastic Theories of Risky Choice," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 103-130, March.
    3. David Bruner, 2011. "Multiple switching behaviour in multiple price lists," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(5), pages 417-420.
    4. John Hey & Andrea Morone & Ulrich Schmidt, 2009. "Noise and bias in eliciting preferences," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 213-235, December.
    5. Ondřej Rydval & Andreas Ortmann & Sasha Prokosheva & Ralph Hertwig, 2009. "How certain is the uncertainty effect?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 12(4), pages 473-487, December.
    6. Uri Gneezy & John A. List & George Wu, 2006. "The Uncertainty Effect: When a Risky Prospect is Valued Less than its Worst Possible Outcome," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 121(4), pages 1283-1309.
    7. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    8. Andrew Caplin & John Leahy, 2001. "Psychological Expected Utility Theory and Anticipatory Feelings," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 116(1), pages 55-79.
    9. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde & Jürgen Schupp & Gert G. Wagner, 2011. "Individual Risk Attitudes: Measurement, Determinants, And Behavioral Consequences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 522-550, June.
    10. Dittmar, Helga & Drury, John, 2000. "Self-image - is it in the bag? A qualitative comparison between "ordinary" and "excessive" consumers," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 109-142, April.
    11. Uri Benzion & Shosh Shahrabani & Tal Shavit, 2013. "Retesting The Uncertainty Effect Using Lotteries With Real Products And Money," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65, pages 175-186, May.
    12. Brebner, Sarah & Sonnemans, Joep, 2018. "Does the elicitation method impact the WTA/WTP disparity?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 40-45.
    13. Peter Bohm & Hans Lind, 1993. "Preference reversal, real-world lotteries, and lottery-interested subjects," Framed Field Experiments 00131, The Field Experiments Website.
    14. Louis Eeckhoudt & Harris Schlesinger, 2006. "Putting Risk in Its Proper Place," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(1), pages 280-289, March.
    15. Liran Einav & Amy Finkelstein & Iuliana Pascu & Mark R. Cullen, 2012. "How General Are Risk Preferences? Choices under Uncertainty in Different Domains," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(6), pages 2606-2638, October.
    16. Harrison, Glenn W, 1992. "Theory and Misbehavior of First-Price Auctions: Reply," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(5), pages 1426-1443, December.
    17. Bernheim, B Douglas, 1994. "A Theory of Conformity," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 102(5), pages 841-877, October.
    18. Shavit Tal & Benzion Uri & Shahrabani Shosh, 2010. "Risk attitude in lotteries offering real products and monetary outcomes," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 6(2), pages 253-261, June.
    19. Chris Starmer, 2000. "Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 332-382, June.
    20. Patrick DeGraba, 1995. "Buying Frenzies and Seller-Induced Excess Demand," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 26(2), pages 331-342, Summer.
    21. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    22. Palfrey, Thomas R, 1983. "Bundling Decisions by a Multiproduct Monopolist with Incomplete Information," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 51(2), pages 463-483, March.
    23. Bohm, Peter & Lind, Hans, 1993. "Preference reversal, real-world lotteries, and lottery-interested subjects," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 327-348, December.
    24. Mary Riddel, 2012. "Comparing risk preferences over financial and environmental lotteries," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 135-157, October.
    25. 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.
    26. Humphrey, Steven J. & Verschoor, Arjan, 2004. "The probability weighting function: experimental evidence from Uganda, India and Ethiopia," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 84(3), pages 419-425, September.
    27. George E. Newman & Daniel Mochon, 2012. "Why are lotteries valued less? Multiple tests of a direct risk-aversion mechanism," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(1), pages 19-24, January.
    28. Rachel Croson & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Gender Differences in Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 448-474, June.
    29. Conlisk, John, 1993. "The Utility of Gambling," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 255-275, June.
    30. Eric Danan & Anthony Ziegelmeyer, 2006. "Are preferences complete? An experimental measurement of indecisiveness under risk," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2006-01, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    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. Chaikal Nuryakin & Alistair Munro, 2019. "Experiments on lotteries for shrouded and bundled goods: Investigating the economics of fukubukuro," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 70(2), pages 168-188, June.

    More about this item

    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

    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:ngi:dpaper:15-24. 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: (). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/gripsjp.html .

    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 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.

    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.