IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Double or Nothing!? Small Groups Making Decisions Under Risk in “Quiz Taxi”

  • Klemens Keldenich

    ()

  • Marcus Klemm

This paper investigates the behavior of contestants in the game show “Quiz Taxi” when faced with the decision whether to bet the winnings they have acquired on a fi nal “double or nothing” question. The decision is made by groups of two or three persons. This set-up enables the decision making process to be studied by observing group communication. There is a strong correlation between communication content and the fi nal choice, indicating that, from the contestant‘s perspective, the decisions are rational and that the context is an important factor in the fi nal decision. This is particularly so for individual valuations of the money at stake. More extensive discussions help to make the right decision. As contestants do not apply to go on the show, they represent a less selected sample than those in previous game show studies. Overall, the contestants show risk averse behavior, suggesting CRRA-parameters larger than 1. The study also shows some heterogeneity in attitude to risk. Contestants who do better in the show are more likely to go for the risky option, because they are more knowledgeable and more confi dent. All-female groups are less likely and three-person groups more likely to choose the risky option.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://repec.rwi-essen.de/files/REP_11_278.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Universität Dortmund, Universität Duisburg-Essen in its series Ruhr Economic Papers with number 0278.

as
in new window

Length: 37 pages
Date of creation: Aug 2011
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:rwi:repape:0278
Contact details of provider: Postal: Hohenzollernstraße 1-3, 45128 Essen
Phone: (0201)8149-0
Fax: (0201)8149-200
Web page: http://www.rwi-essen.de/
Email:


More information through EDIRC

Order Information: Web: http://www.rwi-essen.de/publikationen/

References listed on IDEAS
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.:

as in new window
  1. Bettina Kuon & Abdolkarim Sadrieh & Barbara Mathauschek, 1999. "Teams Take the Better Risks," Discussion Paper Serie B 452, University of Bonn, Germany.
  2. Donkers, A.C.D. & Melenberg, B. & van Soest, A.H.O., 1999. "Estimating Risk Attitudes Using Lotteries; A Large Sample Approach," Discussion Paper 1999-12, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
  3. David Reiley & John List, 2008. "Field experiments," Artefactual Field Experiments 00091, The Field Experiments Website.
  4. Jianakoplos, Nancy Ammon & Bernasek, Alexandra, 1998. "Are Women More Risk Averse?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 36(4), pages 620-30, October.
  5. Roger Hartley & Gauthier Lanot & Ian Walker, 2014. "Who Really Wants To Be A Millionaire? Estimates Of Risk Aversion From Gameshow Data," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(6), pages 861-879, 09.
  6. Ronald J. Baker II & Susan K. Laury & Arlington W. Williams, 2007. "Comparing Small-Group and Individual Behavior in Lottery-Choice Experiments," Caepr Working Papers 2007-018, Center for Applied Economics and Policy Research, Economics Department, Indiana University Bloomington.
  7. Matthew Rabin, 2000. "Risk Aversion and Expected-Utility Theory: A Calibration Theorem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(5), pages 1281-1292, September.
  8. Alma Cohen & Liran Einav, 2005. "Estimating Risk Preferences from Deductible Choice," Discussion Papers 04-031, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
  9. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-91, March.
  10. Alan S. Blinder, 2005. "Monetary Policy by Committee: Why and How?," Working Papers 84, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Center for Economic Policy Studies..
  11. Prather, Larry J. & Middleton, Karen L., 2002. "Are N+1 heads better than one?: The case of mutual fund managers," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 103-120, January.
  12. John A. List, 2006. "Friend or Foe? A Natural Experiment of the Prisoner's Dilemma," NBER Working Papers 12097, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  13. Egil Matsen & Bjarne Strøm, 2010. "Dominated choices in a simple game with large stakes," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 99-119, March.
  14. Robert E. Hall, 1981. "Intertemporal Substitution in Consumption," NBER Working Papers 0720, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  15. Fehr-Duda, Helga & Epper, Thomas & Bruhin, Adrian & Schubert, Renate, 2011. "Risk and rationality: The effects of mood and decision rules on probability weighting," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 78(1-2), pages 14-24, April.
  16. Connel Fullenkamp & Rafael Tenorio & Robert Battalio, 2003. "Assessing Individual Risk Attitudes Using Field Data From Lottery Games," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 85(1), pages 218-226, February.
  17. Robert Brooks & Robert Faff & Daniel Mulino & Richard Scheelings, 2009. "Deal or No Deal, That is the Question: The Impact of Increasing Stakes and Framing Effects on Decision-Making under Risk," International Review of Finance, International Review of Finance Ltd., vol. 9(1-2), pages 27-50.
  18. Helga Fehr-Duda & Adrian Bruhin & Thomas Epper & Renate Schubert, 2007. "Rationality on the Rise: Why Relative Risk Aversion Increases with Stake Size," SOI - Working Papers 0708, Socioeconomic Institute - University of Zurich, revised Feb 2008.
  19. Thierry Post & Martijn J. van den Assem & Guido Baltussen & Richard H. Thaler, 2008. "Deal or No Deal? Decision Making under Risk in a Large-Payoff Game Show," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(1), pages 38-71, March.
  20. David J. Cooper & John H. Kagel, 2005. "Are Two Heads Better Than One? Team versus Individual Play in Signaling Games," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(3), pages 477-509, June.
  21. Dohmen, Thomas & Falk, Armin & Huffman, David & Marklein, Felix & Sunde, Uwe, 2009. "Biased probability judgment: Evidence of incidence and relationship to economic outcomes from a representative sample," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(3), pages 903-915, December.
  22. Nicolas de Roos & Yianis Sarafidis, 2010. "Decision making under risk in Deal or No Deal," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(6), pages 987-1027.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rwi:repape:0278. 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: (Sabine Weiler)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.