The effect of the background risk in a simple chance improving decision model

We experimentally investigate the effect of an independent and exogenous background risk to initial wealth on subjects’ risk attitudes and explore an appropriate incentive mechanism when identical or similar tasks are repeated in an experiment. Taking a simple chance improving decision model under risk where the winning probabilities are negatively related to the potential gain, we find that such a background risk tends to make risk-averse subjects behave more risk aversely. Furthermore, we find that risk-averse subjects tend to show decreasing absolute risk aversion (DARA), and that a random round payoff mechanism (RRPM) would control the possible wealth effect. This suggests that RRPM would be a better incentive mechanism for an experiment where repetition of a task is used.

[1]  Jinkwon Lee,et al.  Do subjects remember the past? , 2005 .

[2]  Richard J. Zeckhauser,et al.  Proper risk aversion , 1987 .

[3]  R. Sugden,et al.  Testing Different Stochastic Specificationsof Risky Choice , 1998 .

[4]  Jeremy Clark.  House Money Effects in Public Good Experiments , 2002 .

[5]  L. Eeckhoudt,et al.  Economic and Financial Decisions under Risk , 2005 .

[6]  Christian Gollier.  Repeated optional gambles and risk aversion , 1996 .

[7]  H. P. Binswanger.  Attitudes toward risk: Experimental measurement in rural india , 1980 .

[8]  Vernon L. Smith,et al.  Experimental Economics: Reply , 1985 .

[9]  Robert Sugden,et al.  A Microeconometric Test of Alternative Stochastic Theories of Risky Choice , 2002 .

[10]  David W Harless,et al.  The predictive utility of generalized expected utility theories , 1994 .

[11]  Alessandra Cassar,et al.  Economics Lab: An Intensive Course in Experimental Economics , 2004 .

[12]  R. Sugden,et al.  Does the Random-Lottery Incentive System Elicit True Preferences? An Experimental Investigation , 2016 .

[13]  Miles S. Kimball,et al.  Standard Risk Aversion , 1991 .

[14]  Charles A. Holt,et al.  Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects , 2002 .

[15]  Risk Aversion, Wealth and Background Risk , 2008 .

[16]  J. Hey,et al.  Do Subjects Separate (or Are They Sophisticated)? , 2005 .

[17]  Robin P. Cubitt,et al.  On the Validity of the Random Lottery Incentive System , 1998 .

[18]  G. Harrison.  Theory and Misbehavior of First-Price Auctions , 1989 .

[19]  C. Plott,et al.  Economic Theory of Choice and the Preference Reversal Phenomenon , 1979 .

[20]  R. Thaler,et al.  Gambling with the house money and trying to break even: the effects of prior outcomes on risky choice , 1990 .

[21]  Susan K. Laury,et al.  Pay One or Pay All: Random Selection of One Choice for Payment , 2005 .

[22]  Duncan James,et al.  Just Who Are You Calling Risk Averse? , 2000 .

[23]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Controls for Risk Aversion in the Laboratory , 2005 .

[24]  David M. Grether,et al.  The preference reversal phenomenon: Response mode, markets and incentives , 1996 .

[25]  Atanu Saha,et al.  Expo-Power Utility: A ‘Flexible’ Form for Absolute and Relative Risk Aversion , 1993 .

[26]  Christian Gollier,et al.  Risk Vulnerability and the temper-ing E ect of Background Risk , 1996 .

[27]  Jinkwon Lee.  Repetition and Financial Incentives in Economics Experiments , 2007 .

[28]  Martin C. McGuire,et al.  Paying to improve your chances: Gambling or insurance? , 1991 .

[29]  J. Hey,et al.  INVESTIGATING GENERALIZATIONS OF EXPECTED UTILITY THEORY USING EXPERIMENTAL DATA , 1994, Experiments in Economics.

[30]  Urs Fischbacher,et al.  z-Tree - Zurich toolbox for readymade economic experiments: experimenter's manual , 1999 .

[31]  Charles A. Holt,et al.  Preference Reversals and the Independence Axiom , 1986 .

[32]  C. Gollier.  The economics of risk and time , 2001 .

[33]  Louis Eeckhoudt,et al.  Changes in Background Risk and Risk Taking Behavior , 1996 .