IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osu/osuewp/16-02.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Separated Decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Paul J. Healy

    () (Department of Economics, Ohio State University)

  • Alexander L. Brown

    () (Department of Economics, Texas A&M University)

Abstract

An essential requirement in the analysis of choice data is that its elicitation be incentive compatible: the incentives provided should not skew agents’ choices. We test incentive compatibility of the random problem selection (RPS) payment mechanism, wherein one choice is randomly chosen for payment. We find that it is not incentive compatible when all decisions are shown in a standard list format. But when the rows of the list are randomized and shown on separate screens, incentive compatibility is restored. This causes more inconsistency between choices, but, since the experiment is incentive compatible, this inconsistency must be inherent in subjects’ preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul J. Healy & Alexander L. Brown, 2016. "Separated Decisions," Working Papers 16-02, Ohio State University, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:osu:osuewp:16-02
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/pdf/healy/wp16-02.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Segal, Uzi, 1990. "Two-Stage Lotteries without the Reduction Axiom," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 58(2), pages 349-377, March.
    2. Lisa Anderson & Jennifer Mellor, 2009. "Are risk preferences stable? Comparing an experimental measure with a validated survey-based measure," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 137-160, October.
    3. Paul J. Healy & Yaron Azrieli & Christopher P. Chambers, 2016. "Incentives in Experiments with Objective Lotteries," Working Papers 16-04, Ohio State University, Department of Economics.
    4. 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.
    5. Steffen Andersen & Glenn Harrison & Morten Lau & E. Rutström, 2009. "Elicitation using multiple price list formats," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 12(3), pages 365-366, September.
    6. Charness, Gary & Viceisza, Angelino, 2011. "Comprehension and risk elicitation in the field: Evidence from rural Senegal," IFPRI discussion papers 1135, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    7. James Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj & Ulrich Schmidt, 2015. "Paradoxes and mechanisms for choice under risk," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(2), pages 215-250, June.
    8. Charles Sprenger, 2015. "An Endowment Effect for Risk: Experimental Tests of Stochastic Reference Points," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 123(6), pages 1456-1499.
    9. Alexander L. Brown & Hwagyun Kim, 2014. "Do Individuals Have Preferences Used in Macro-Finance Models? An Experimental Investigation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(4), pages 939-958, April.
    10. 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.
    11. Segal, Uzi, 1988. "Does the Preference Reversal Phenomenon Necessarily Contradict the Independence Axiom?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 78(1), pages 233-236, March.
    12. Karni, Edi & Safra, Zvi, 1987. ""Preference Reversal' and the Observability of Preferences by Experimental Methods," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(3), pages 675-685, May.
    13. Menahem E. Yaari, 1965. "Convexity in the Theory of Choice under Risk," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 79(2), pages 278-290.
    14. Vjollca Sadiraj & Juan Sun, 2012. "Efficiency in Bargaining Games with Alternating Offers," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 32(3), pages 2366-2374.
    15. Oechssler, Jörg & Rau, Hannes & Roomets, Alex, 2016. "Hedging and Ambiguity," Working Papers 621, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    16. Yaron Azrieli & Christopher P. Chambers & Paul J. Healy, 2018. "Incentives in Experiments: A Theoretical Analysis," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 126(4), pages 1472-1503.
    17. Machina, Mark J & Schmeidler, David, 1992. "A More Robust Definition of Subjective Probability," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(4), pages 745-780, July.
    18. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Imas, Alex, 2013. "Experimental methods: Eliciting risk preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 43-51.
    19. Sean M. Collins & Duncan James, 2015. "Response mode and stochastic choice together explain preference reversals," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 6(3), pages 825-856, November.
    20. Sarah Jacobson & Ragan Petrie, 2009. "Learning from mistakes: What do inconsistent choices over risk tell us?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 143-158, April.
    21. Glenn Harrison & J. Swarthout, 2014. "Experimental payment protocols and the Bipolar Behaviorist," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(3), pages 423-438, October.
    22. repec:now:jnlrbe:105.00000046 is not listed on IDEAS
    23. Cox, James C. & Sadiraj, Vjollca & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2014. "Asymmetrically Dominated Choice Problems, the Isolation Hypothesis and Random Incentive Mechanisms," MPRA Paper 54722, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    24. Starmer, Chris & Sugden, Robert, 1991. "Does the Random-Lottery Incentive System Elicit True Preferences? An Experimental Investigation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(4), pages 971-978, September.
    25. Safra, Zvi & Segal, Uzi & Spivak, Avia, 1990. "Preference Reversal and Nonexpected Utility Behavior," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(4), pages 923-930, September.
    26. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2007. "Stochastic expected utility theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 259-286, June.
    27. repec:eee:gamebe:v:104:y:2017:i:c:p:666-673 is not listed on IDEAS
    28. Beattie, Jane & Loomes, Graham, 1997. "The Impact of Incentives upon Risky Choice Experiments," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 155-168, March.
    29. Robin Cubitt & Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden, 1998. "On the Validity of the Random Lottery Incentive System," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(2), pages 115-131, September.
    30. Oechssler, Jörg & Roomets, Alex, 2014. "Unintended hedging in ambiguity experiments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 122(2), pages 243-246.
    31. Holt, Charles A, 1986. "Preference Reversals and the Independence Axiom," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(3), pages 508-515, June.
    32. Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Reference points, anchors, norms, and mixed feelings," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 296-312, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Payment mechanism; experimental methodology; monotonicity; decisions under uncertainty;

    JEL classification:

    • C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - General
    • D01 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles
    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • 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:osu:osuewp:16-02. 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: (John Slaughter). General contact details of provider: .

    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.