Allais for all: Revisiting the paradox in a large representative sample

We administer the Allais paradox questions to both a representative sample of the Dutch population and to student subjects. Three treatments are implemented: one with the original high hypothetical payoffs, one with low hypothetical payoffs and a third with low real payoffs. Our key findings are: (i) violations in the non-lab sample are systematic and a large bulk of violations is likely to stem from non-familiarity with large payoffs, (ii) we can identify groups of the general population that have much higher than average violation rates; this concerns mainly the lowly educated and unemployed, and (iii) the relative treatment differences in the population at large are accurately predicted by the lab sample, but violation rates in all lab treatments are about 15 percentage points lower than in the corresponding non-lab treatments.

[1]  Charles Bellemare,et al.  On Representative Trust , 2003 .

[2]  Enrica Carbone,et al.  Demographics and Behaviour , 2005 .

[3]  M. Machina.  "Expected Utility" Analysis without the Independence Axiom , 1982 .

[4]  James C. Cox,et al.  Risk aversion in experiments , 2008 .

[5]  R. Thaler,et al.  Deal or No Deal? Decision Making under Risk in a Large-Payoff Game Show , 2008 .

[6]  Charles Bellemare,et al.  On Representative Social Capital , 2004, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[7]  A. Falk,et al.  Individual Risk Attitudes: Measurement, Determinants and Behavioral Consequences , 2009 .

[8]  J. Kagel,et al.  Handbook of Experimental Economics , 1997 .

[9]  Glenn W. Harrison,et al.  Expected Utility Theory and the Experimentalists , 1994 .

[10]  Chinn-Ping Fan.  Allais paradox in the small , 2002 .

[11]  A. F. M. Smith,et al.  Expected Utility Hypotheses and the Allais Paradox. , 1982 .

[12]  Colin Camerer.  Individual Decision Making , 2020, The Handbook of Experimental Economics.

[13]  P. Wakker,et al.  Learning in the Allais paradox , 2006 .

[14]  John R. Carter,et al.  An experimental note on the allais paradox and monetary incentives , 1996 .

[15]  Catherine C. Eckel,et al.  Volunteers and Pseudo-Volunteers: The Effect of Recruitment Method in Dictator Experiments , 2000 .

[16]  A. van Soest,et al.  Heterogeneity in Risky Choice Behaviour in a Broad Population , 2009, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[17]  Tibor Neugebauer,et al.  How Politicians Make Decisions: A Political Choice Experiment , 2007 .

[18]  Aldo Rustichini,et al.  Cognitive skills affect economic preferences, strategic behavior, and job attachment , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[19]  Morten I. Lau,et al.  Risk Aversion in Game Shows , 2008 .

[20]  K. MacCrimmon.  DESCRIPTIVE AND NORMATIVE IMPLICATIONS OF THE DECISION THEORY POSTULATES. A SUMMARY OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS WITH BUSINESS EXECUTIVES , 1966 .

[21]  J. Banks.  Economic capabilities, choices and outcomes at older ages , 2006 .

[22]  W. Viscusi.  Prospective reference theory: Toward an explanation of the paradoxes , 1989 .

[23]  C. Starmer.  Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk , 2000 .

[24]  M. Allais.  Le comportement de l'homme rationnel devant le risque : critique des postulats et axiomes de l'ecole americaine , 1953 .

[25]  John D. Hey,et al.  Experimental Economics and the Theory of Decision Making Under Risk and Uncertainty , 2002 .

[26]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: analysis of decision under risk , 1979 .

[27]  Glenn W. Harrison,et al.  Risk Attitudes, Randomization to Treatment, and Self-Selection into Experiments , 2005 .

[28]  John Conlisk,et al.  Three Variants on the Allais Example , 1989 .

[29]  Glenn W. Harrison,et al.  Expected utility theory and the experiments , 1994 .

[30]  A. Falk,et al.  Are Risk Aversion and Impatience Related to Cognitive Ability? , 2007, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[31]  Erik Wengström,et al.  Selection and Mode Effects in Risk Preference Elicitation Experiments , 2008, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[32]  J Banks,et al.  Economic choices, capabilities and outcomes at older ages’ , 2006 .

[33]  A. Soest,et al.  Experts in experiments , 2012 .

[34]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk — Source link , 2007 .

[35]  Steven D. Levitt,et al.  What Do Laboratory Experiments Measuring Social Preferences Reveal About the Real World , 2007 .

[36]  John A List,et al.  A simple test of expected utility theory using professional traders. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[37]  V. Smith,et al.  Research in Experimental Economics , 1979 .

[38]  J. Heckman.  The Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation, Sample Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for Such Models , 1976 .

[39]  Catherine C. Eckel,et al.  Volunteers and Pseudo-Volunteers: The Effect of Recruitment Method on Subjects’ Behavior in Experiments , 2000 .

[40]  Daniel J. Benjamin,et al.  Who is 'Behavioral'? Cognitive Ability and Anomalous Preferences , 2006 .

[41]  A. Tversky,et al.  Who accepts Savage's axiom? , 1974 .

[42]  G. Harrison,et al.  Field experiments , 1924, The Journal of Agricultural Science.