Monetary incentives in the loss domain and behavior toward risk: An experimental comparison of three reward schemes including real losses

Etchart-Vincent, Nathalie; l’Haridon, Olivier

doi:10.1007/s11166-010-9110-0

Cited by 101 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For these reasons, we do not implement real losses in our module. Etchart-Vincent and l’Haridon (2011) have extensively tested the effect of real incentives in controlled experiments for both gains and losses, and they found that real and hypothetical choices differ significantly only in the gain domain, but not in the loss domain. 13 …”

Section: Measuring Ambiguity Attitudesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating ambiguity preferences and perceptions in multiple prior models: Evidence from the field

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We develop a tractable method to estimate multiple prior models of decision-making under ambiguity. In a representative sample of the U.S. population, we measure ambiguity attitudes in the gain and loss domains. We find that ambiguity aversion is common for uncertain events of moderate to high likelihood involving gains, but ambiguity seeking prevails for low likelihoods and for losses. We show that choices made under ambiguity in the gain domain are best explained by the α-MaxMin model, with one parameter measuring ambiguity aversion (ambiguity preferences) and a second parameter quantifying the perceived degree of ambiguity (perceptions about ambiguity). The ambiguity aversion parameter α is constant and prior probability sets are asymmetric for low and high likelihood events. The data reject several other models, such as MaxMin and MaxMax, as well as symmetric probability intervals. Ambiguity aversion and the perceived degree of ambiguity are both higher for men and for the college-educated. Ambiguity aversion (but not perceived ambiguity) is also positively related to risk aversion. In the loss domain, we find evidence of reflection, implying that ambiguity aversion for gains tends to reverse into ambiguity seeking for losses. Our model’s estimates for preferences and perceptions about ambiguity can be used to analyze the economic and financial implications of such preferences.

show abstract

Section: Measuring Ambiguity Attitudesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating ambiguity preferences and perceptions in multiple prior models: Evidence from the field

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Patients can be offered the possibility of gaining a reward for screening and bear a loss in the absence of screening. Despite the existence of some studies about incentive framing in other settings suggesting that loss-framed incentives are stronger motivators (Etchart-Vicent & l’Haridon, 2011; Madhavan et al, 2012), within health research there is scarce evidence.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vouchers versus Lotteries: What Works Best in Promoting Chlamydia Screening? A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

Niza¹,

Rudisill²,

Dolan³

2013

Applied Eco Perspectives Pol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this cluster randomised trial (N=1060), we tested the impact of financial incentives (£5 voucher vs. £200 lottery) framed as a gain or loss to promote Chlamydia screening in students aged 18-24 years, mimicking the standard outreach approach to student in halls of residence. Compared to the control group (1.5%), the lottery increased screening to 2.8% and the voucher increased screening to 22.8%. Incentives framed as gains were marginally more effective (10.5%) that loss-framed incentives (7.1%). This work fundamentally contributes to the literature by testing the predictive validity of Prospect Theory to change health behaviour in the field.

show abstract

“…Fewer studies provide evidence on the degree of loss aversion, and none of them investigate adolescents (Abdellaoui et al, 2008;Etchart-Vincent and L'Haridon, 2011). An exception is Glätzle-Rützler et al…”

Section: Descriptive Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer effects in risky choices among adolescents

Lucks¹,

Lührmann²,

Winter³

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We study the effects of peers on risky decision making among adolescents in the age range of 13 to 15 years. In a field experiment, we randomly allocated school classes to two social interaction treatments. Students were allowed to discuss their choices with a natural peer -either a friend or a randomly selected classmate -before individually making choices in an incentivised lottery task.In the control group, adolescents made choices without being able to discuss them with a peer. In addition, we collected information on existing peer networks. This novel design allows us to separate two channels of peer influence, assortative matching on preferences and the effect of social interaction on choices. We find that friends and classmates are matched on socio-demographic characteristics but not on risk preferences. In contrast, social interaction strongly increases the similarity of teenagers' risky choices. A large fraction of peers align their choices perfectly.JEL codes: D03, D80, G02, C91, D81

show abstract

Monetary incentives in the loss domain and behavior toward risk: An experimental comparison of three reward schemes including real losses

Cited by 101 publications

References 54 publications

Estimating ambiguity preferences and perceptions in multiple prior models: Evidence from the field

Estimating ambiguity preferences and perceptions in multiple prior models: Evidence from the field

Vouchers versus Lotteries: What Works Best in Promoting Chlamydia Screening? A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

Peer effects in risky choices among adolescents

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About