Understanding the Two Components of Risk Attitudes: An Experimental Analysis

Economics and management science share the tradition of ordering risk aversion by ï¬tting the best expected utility (EU) model with a certain utility function to individual data, and then using the utility curvature for each individual as the sole index of risk attitude. (Cumulative) Prospect theory (CPT) has demonstrated various empirical deï¬ciencies of EU and introduced the weighting of probabilities as an additional component to capture risk attitude. However, if utility curvature and probability weighting were strongly correlated, the utility curvature in EU alone, while not properly describing risky behavior in general, would still capture most of the variance regarding degrees of risk aversion. This study shows, however, that such a strong correlation does not exist. Though, most individuals exhibit concave utility and convex probability weighting, the two components show no correlation. Thus neglecting one component entails a loss.risk attitudes, cumulative prospect theory, experimental study

Understanding the Two Components of Risk Attitudes: An Experimental Analysis

Cumulative Prospect Theory (PT) introduced the weighting of probabilities as an additional component to capture risk attitudes. However, this addition would be a less significant challenge to expected utility theory (EU) if utility curvature and probability weighting showed strong positive correlation. In that case the utility curvature in EU alone, while not properly describing risky behavior in general, would still capture most of the variance of individual risk aversion. This study provides experimental evidence that such a strong and positive correlation does not exist. Although most individuals exhibit concave utility and convex probability weighting, the two components show no strong positive correlation.risk attitudes, cumulative prospect theory, experimental study

Testing the Modigliani-Miller theorem directly in the lab

We present an experiment designed to test the Modigliani-Miller theorem. Applying a general equilibrium approach and not allowing for arbitrage among firms with different capital structures, we find that, in accordance with the theorem, participants well recognize changes in the systematic risk of equity associated with increasing leverage and, accordingly, demand higher rate of return. Yet, this adjustment is not perfect: subjects underestimate the systematic risk of low-leveraged equity whereas they overestimate the systematic risk of high-leveraged equity, resulting in a U-shaped cost of capital. A (control) individual decision-making experiment, eliciting several points on individual demand and supply curves for shares, provides some support for the theoreModigliani-Miller theorem, Experiments, Decision making under risk, General equilibrium

Satisficing in sales competition: experimental evidence

In a duopoly market, aspirations express how much sellers want to earn given their expectations about the other's behavior. We define individually and mutually satisficing sales behavior for given individual beliefs and aspirations. In a first experimental phase, whenever satisficing is not possible, beliefs, aspirations, or sales have to be adapted. In a second phase, testing the absorption of satisficing, participants are free to select nonsatisficing sales profiles. The results reveal that most people are satisficers who, either mandatorily or deliberately, tend to adjust aspiration levels if they cannot be satisfied.

Completing incomplete preferences

We propose a model for individuals who have incomplete preferences and attempt to complete them. We show that two empirical puzzles ‑ the willingness-to-pay and willingness-to-ask (WTP-WTA) gap as well as the present bias ‑ arise naturally in the process of completing incomplete preferences. Based on the model, an incentive-compatible mechanism to measure the incompleteness in preferences is developed. An experimental implementation of the measurement mechanism provides results consistent with our model

Completing incomplete preferences

We propose a model for individuals who have incomplete preferences and attempt to complete them. We show that two empirical puzzles ‑ the willingness-to-pay and willingness-to-ask (WTP-WTA) gap as well as the present bias ‑ arise naturally in the process of completing incomplete preferences. Based on the model, an incentive-compatible mechanism to measure the incompleteness in preferences is developed. An experimental implementation of the measurement mechanism provides results consistent with our model

Completing incomplete preferences

We propose a model for individuals who have incomplete preferences and attempt to complete them. We show that two empirical puzzles ‑ the willingness-to-pay and willingness-to-ask (WTP-WTA) gap as well as the present bias ‑ arise naturally in the process of completing incomplete preferences. Based on the model, an incentive-compatible mechanism to measure the incompleteness in preferences is developed. An experimental implementation of the measurement mechanism provides results consistent with our model

Indifference or indecisiveness: a strict discrimination

We develop a new approach to directly and strictly distinguish indecisiveness from indifference, and study the prevalence and welfare implications of indecisiveness. In our approach experimental subjects face a list of pairs of options. Besides the standard choice of choosing one option out of the pair (the binary choice), we also allow experimental subjects to randomize over the two options by choosing probabilities according to which either option determines the payoffs (the randomized choice). Furthermore, we elicit subjects' willingness to pay (WTP) of using the randomized choice via a modified multiple price list method. We show that subjects might strictly prefer the randomized choice over the binary choice when they are indecisive. Our results suggest that (1) the vast majority of subjects randomized actively; (2) subjects took longer time to make strictly randomized decisions; (3) subjects were willing to pay a strictly positive amount of money to randomize, and they were willing to pay more for choices that they feel more indecisive. These results provide strong evidence for the existence of indecisiveness in choices. More importantly, it suggests that there might exist significant welfare losses when indecisive individuals are forced to make all-or-nothing decisions against their potentially incomplete preferences

Reference dependent ambiguity aversion: theory and experiment

In standard models of ambiguity, the evaluation of an ambiguous asset, as of a risky asset, is considered as an independent process. In this process only information directly pertaining to the ambiguous asset is used. These models face significant challenges from the finding that ambiguity aversion is more pronounced when an ambiguous asset is evaluated alongside a risky asset than in isolation. To explain this phenomenon, we developed a theoretical model based on reference dependence in probabilities. According to this model, individuals (1) form subjective beliefs on the potential winning probability of the ambiguous asset; (2) use the winning probability of the (simultaneously presented) risky asset as a reference point to evaluate the potential winning probabilities of the ambiguous asset; (3) code potential winning probabilities of the ambiguous asset that are greater than the reference point as gains and those that are smaller than the reference point as losses; (4) weight losses in probability heavier than gains in probability. We tested the crucial assumption, reference dependence in probabilities, in an experiment and found supporting evidence