Advertisement

Why choice lists increase risk taking

  • David J. Freeman
  • Guy Mayraz
Original Paper
  • 51 Downloads

Abstract

Choice lists with random incentives are widely used for preference elicitation. It is commonly assumed that subjects choose the same option in each question as they would have if it were the only question, but recent findings challenge this assumption. We conduct a large sample experiment varying incentives and presentation independently, and examine choices both near and away from certainty. We consistently find more risk taking when a choice between a safe prize and a risky lottery is embedded in a choice list than when it is presented on its own. This difference remains when we inform subjects of the paid choice in advance, implying that isolation fails not because of the random incentives scheme, but simply because the choice appears in a list together with others. We conjecture that subjects are uncertain about their preferences, reduce this uncertainty through considering the choices that confront them, and make cautious decisions in the interim. Other conditions and non-choice data support this interpretation. Our results open up the possibility that preferences inferred from choice lists offer a better indication of informed preferences than preferences inferred from single choices.

Keywords

Choice lists Random incentive scheme Discovered preferences Presentation effect 

JEL Classification

C91 D03 D81 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the editor, referees, and seminar and conference audiences for comments that improved the paper. Funding for the experiment was provided by the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR).

Supplementary material

10683_2018_9586_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (794 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 794 KB)

References

  1. Agranov, M., & Ortoleva, P. (2017). Stochastic choice and preferences for randomization. Journal of Political Economy, 125(1), 40–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen, S., Harrison, G., Lau, M., & Rutström, E. (2006). Elicitation using multiple price list formats. Experimental Economics, 9(4), 383–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ariely, D., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2003). Coherent arbitrariness: Stable demand curves without stable preferences. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 73–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Battalio, R., Kagel, J., & Jiranyakul, K. (1990). Testing between alternative models of choice under uncertainty: Some initial results. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 3(1), 25–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beattie, J., & Loomes, G. (1997). The impact of incentives upon risky choice experiments. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 14(2), 155–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beauchamp, J. P., Benjamin, D. J., Chabris, C. F., & Laibson, D. I . (2015). Controlling for the compromise effect debiases estimates of risk preference parameters. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  7. Berg, J. E., Dickhaut, J. W., & Rietz, T. A. (2010). Preference reversals: The impact of truth-revealing monetary incentives. Games and Economic Behavior, 68(2), 443–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s mechanical turk. Political Analysis, 20(3), 351–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown, A. L., & Healy, P. J. (2018). Separated decisions. European Economic Review, 101, 20–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Butler, D., & Loomes, G. (2007). Imprecision as an account of the preference reversal phenomenon. American Economic Review, 97(1), 277–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Colin, C. F. (1989). An experimental test of several generalized utility theories. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2(1), 61–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Castillo, M., & Eil, D. (2014). Tariffing the multiple price list: Imperceptive preferences and the reversing of the common ratio effect. Working paper.Google Scholar
  13. Cerreia-Vioglio, S., Dillenberger, D., & Ortoleva, P. (2015). Cautious expected utility and the certainty effect. Econometrica, 83(2), 693–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cox, J. C., Sadiraj, V., & Schmidt, U. (2014). Asymmetrically dominated choice problems, the isolation hypothesis and random incentive mechanisms. PloS ONE, 9(3), e90742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cox, J. C., Sadiraj, V., & Schmidt, U. (2015). Paradoxes and mechanisms for choice under risk. Experimental Economics, 18(2), 215–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cubitt, R. P., Munro, A., & Starmer, C. (2004). Testing explanations of preference reversal. Economic Journal, 114(497), 709–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cubitt, R. P., Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (1998). On the validity of the random lottery incentive system. Experimental Economics, 1(2), 115–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dean, M., & Ortoleva, P. (2016). Allais, ellsberg, and preferences for hedging. Theoretical Economics, 12(1), 317–424.Google Scholar
  19. Difallah, D., Filatova, E., & Ipeirotis, P. (2018). Demographics and dynamics of mechanical turk workers. In Proceedings of the eleventh ACM international conference on web search and data mining. ACM, pp. 135–143.Google Scholar
  20. Freeman, D., Halevy, Y., & Kneeland, T. (in press). Eliciting risk preferences using choice lists. Quantitative Economics. https://www.econometricsociety.org/publications/econometrica/about/journal-news/2018/05/01/new-papers-posted-quantitative-economics.
  21. Grether, D., & Plott, C. (1979). Economic theory of choice and the preference reversal phenomenon. American Economic Review, 69(4), 623–638.Google Scholar
  22. Harrison, G., & Swarthout, J. (2014). Experimental payment protocols and the bipolar behaviorist. Theory and Decision, 77(3), 423–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hey, J. D., & Orme, C. (1994). Investigating generalizations of expected utility theory using experimental data. Econometrica, 62, 1291–1326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hey, J. D., & Lee, J. (2005). Do subjects separate (or are they sophisticated)? Experimental Economics, 8(3), 233–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hey, J. D., Morone, Andrea, & Schmidt, U. (2009). Noise and bias in eliciting preferences. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 39(3), 213–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Holt, C. (1986). Preference reversals and the independence axiom. American Economic Review, 76(3), 508–515.Google Scholar
  27. Holt, C., & Laury, S. (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. American Economic Review, 92(5), 1644–1655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Horton, J., Rand, D., & Zeckhauser, R. (2011). The online laboratory: Conducting experiments in a real labor market. Experimental Economics, 14(3), 399–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Huber, J., Payne, J. W., & Puto, C. (1982). Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: Violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(1), 90–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Karni, E., & Safra, Z. (1987). “Preference reversal” and the observability of preferences by experimental methods. Econometrica, 55(3), 675–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lévy-Garboua, L., Maafi, H., Masclet, D., & Terracol, A. (2012). Risk aversion and framing effects. Experimental Economics, 15(1), 128–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lichtenstein, S., & Slovic, P. (1971). Reversal of preference between bids and choices in gambling decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89(1), 46–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lichtenstein, S., & Slovic, P. (2006). The construction of preference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Loomes, G., & Pogrebna, G. (2014). Measuring individual risk attitudes when preferences are imprecise. Economic Journal, 124(576), 569–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1998). Testing different stochastic specifications of risky choice. Economica, 65(260), 581–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mason, W., & Suri, S. (2011). Conducting behavioral research on amazon’s mechanical turk. Behavior Research Methods, 44(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ok, E. A. (2002). Utility representation of an incomplete preference relation. Journal of Economic Theory, 104(2), 429–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. (2010). Running experiments on amazon mechanical turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(5), 411–419.Google Scholar
  39. Plott, C. (1996). Rational individual behaviour in markets and social choice processes. In K. Arrow, E. Colombatto, M. Perlman, & C. Schmidt (Eds.), The rational foundations of economic behaviour (pp. 225–250). Basingstoke: Macmillan Press.Google Scholar
  40. Rabin, M., & Weizsäcker, G. (2009). Narrow bracketing and dominated choices. American Economic Review, 99(4), 1508–1543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Read, D., Loewenstein, G., & Rabin, M. (1999). Choice bracketing. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19(1–3), 171–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sprenger, C. (2015). An endowment effect for risk: Experimental tests of stochastic reference points. Journal of Political Economy, 123(6), 1456–1499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (1991). Does the random-lottery incentive system elicit true preferences? An experimental investigation. American Economic Review, 81(4), 971–978.Google Scholar
  44. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tversky, A., Sattath, S., & Slovic, P. (1988). Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psychological Review, 95(3), 371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tversky, A., Slovic, P., & Kahneman, D. (1990). The causes of preference reversal. American Economic Review, 80(1), 204–217.Google Scholar
  47. Wilcox, N. T. (2008). Stochastic models for binary discrete choice under risk: A critical primer and econometric comparison. In J. C. Cox & G. W. Harrison (Eds.), Risk aversion in experiments (pp. 197–292). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wu, G. (1994). An empirical test of ordinal independence. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 9(1), 39–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Economic Science Association 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsSimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsUniversity of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations