Why choice lists increase risk taking
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.
KeywordsChoice lists Random incentive scheme Discovered preferences Presentation effect
JEL ClassificationC91 D03 D81
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).
- 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
- Castillo, M., & Eil, D. (2014). Tariffing the multiple price list: Imperceptive preferences and the reversing of the common ratio effect. Working paper.Google Scholar
- Dean, M., & Ortoleva, P. (2016). Allais, ellsberg, and preferences for hedging. Theoretical Economics, 12(1), 317–424.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.
- Grether, D., & Plott, C. (1979). Economic theory of choice and the preference reversal phenomenon. American Economic Review, 69(4), 623–638.Google Scholar
- Holt, C. (1986). Preference reversals and the independence axiom. American Economic Review, 76(3), 508–515.Google Scholar
- Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. (2010). Running experiments on amazon mechanical turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(5), 411–419.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Tversky, A., Slovic, P., & Kahneman, D. (1990). The causes of preference reversal. American Economic Review, 80(1), 204–217.Google Scholar