No abstract

No abstract

Recent studies cast doubt on the ability of abstract experiments to predict decision-making in the field. Thus, scholars have argued for more 'realism' by introducing context to field experiments. Yet, such realism may work against the induced values of monetary incentives in economic experiments. It is an open question whether contextual framing works best with or without inducing values, through methods such as the use of monetary incentives. Using a sample of 146 German farmers, we compare experimentally the predictive power of a framed lottery in an agricultural context vs. using an abstract version. For one half of the sample, lotteries are incentivised; for the other half, they are hypothetical. Although risk preferences differ between treatments, all four lottery tasks correlate poorly with farmers' real-world use of risk management instruments such as harvest or hail insurance. Subjects who start with an agricultural framing are willing to take significantly greater risks in the lotteries. More generally, our findings cast doubt on the ability of lottery tasks to predict risk-taking in the field.

The disposition effect is a well-established phenomenon which describes the behavior of investors that are more willing to sell capital gains than capital losses. In this article we present experimental evidence on a situation where an investor decides on behalf of another person. In our setting, trading effort should only be affected by investors' intrinsic motivation, as trading actions only influence the profits of a matched person. In a control treatment, trades directly influence investors' profits. Overall, we find that trading on behalf of others increases disposition effects. In this treatment, we find that the effect is caused by inexperienced investors, characterized by a greater concern for others. Thus, trading for others results in an emotional burden for these investors, which leads to weak trading performance.

No abstract