An inconsistency between certain outcomes and uncertain incentives within behavioral methods

Harin, Alexander (2016): An inconsistency between certain outcomes and uncertain incentives within behavioral methods.

Abstract

In random–lottery incentive methods, the choices of certain (sure) outcomes are stimulated by uncertain lotteries. This inconsistency is evident, but only recently revealed. Certain and uncertain outcomes can differ from each other. The revealed inconsistency can hide this possible difference. The cause is: under the condition of the uncertain incentive, the questioned subjects can treat a certain outcome as an uncertain one. The considered critical empirical insight should be kept in mind by both theoreticians and practitioners. It leads also to more general questions of comparison of sure and probable (uncertain) outcomes those should be clarified to increase our understanding of behavior problems.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: decision; utility; experiment; economics; management; psychology; business
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C1 - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C9 - Design of Experiments; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C9 - Design of Experiments > C91 - Laboratory, Individual Behavior; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C9 - Design of Experiments > C93 - Field Experiments; D - Microeconomics > D8 - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty; D - Microeconomics > D8 - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty > D81 - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

References

Abdellaoui, M., Baillon, A., Placido, L., & Wakker, P. P. 2011. The Rich Domain of Uncertainty: Source Functions and Their Experimental Implementation. American Economic Review, 101: 695–723.

Andreoni, J., & Sprenger, C. 2012. Risk Preferences Are Not Time Preferences. American Economic Review, 102: 3357–3376.

Baltussen, G., Post, T., van den Assem, M. J., & Wakker, P. P. 2012. Random Incentive Systems in a Dynamic Choice Experiment. Experimental Economics, 15: 418–443.

Choi, S., Fisman, R., Gale, D. & Kariv, S. 2007. Consistency and heterogeneity of individual behavior under uncertainty. American Economic Review, 97: 1921–38.

Cox, J. C., Sadiraj, V. & Schmidt, U. 2015. Paradoxes and mechanisms for choice under risk. Experimental Economics, 18: 215–250.

Fehr, E., & Falk, A. 2002. Psychological foundations of incentives. European Economic Review, 46: 687–724.

Harin, А., “The random–lottery incentive system. Can p~1 experiments deductions be correct?” 16th conference on the Foundations of Utility and Risk, 2014.

Harrison, G. W., Johnson, E., Mcinnes, M., & Rutström, E. 2005. Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects: Comment. American Economic Review, 95: 897–901.

Holt, C. A., & Laury, S. K. 2002. Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects. American Economic Review, 92: 1644–1655.

Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. 1991. Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5: 193–206.

Larkin, I., & Leider, S. 2012. Incentive Schemes, Sorting, and Behavioral Biases of Employees: Experimental Evidence. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 4: 184–214.

Loewenstein, G., & Thaler, R. H. 1989. Anomalies. Intertemporal Choice. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3: 181–193.

Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. 1991. Does the Random–Lottery Incentive System Elicit True Preferences? An Experimental Investigation. American Economic Review, 81: 971–78.

Vossler, C. A., Doyon, M., & Rondeau, D. 2012. Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 4: 145–171.

Vrijdags, A., & Marchant, T. 2015. From Uniform Expected Utility to Uniform Rank-Dependent Utility: An experimental study. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 64–65: 76–86.