Skip to main content
Log in

Risk aversion and framing effects

  • Published:
Experimental Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We present a new experimental evidence of how framing affects decisions in the context of a lottery choice experiment for measuring risk aversion. We investigate framing effects by replicating the Holt and Laury’s (Am. Econ. Rev. 92:1644–1655, 2002) procedure for measuring risk aversion under various frames. We first examine treatments where participants are confronted with the 10 decisions to be made either simultaneously or sequentially. The second treatment variable is the order of appearance of the ten lottery pairs. Probabilities of winning are ranked either in increasing, decreasing, or in random order. Lastly, payoffs were increased by a factor of ten in additional treatments. The rate of inconsistencies was significantly higher in sequential than in simultaneous treatment, in increasing and random than in decreasing treatment. Both experience and salient incentives induce a dramatic decrease in inconsistent behaviors. On the other hand, risk aversion was significantly higher in sequential than in simultaneous treatment, in decreasing and random than in increasing treatment, in high than in low payoff condition. These findings suggest that subjects use available information which has no value for normative theories, like throwing a glance at the whole connected set of pairwise choices before making each decision in a connected set of lottery pairs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allais, M. (1953). Le comportement de l’homme rationnel devant le risque: critique des postulats et axiomes de l’ecole américaine. Econometrica, 21, 503–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blavatskyy, P. R. (2007). Stochastic expected utility theory. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 34, 259–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blavatskyy, P. R. (2010). A model of probabilistic choice satisfying first-order stochastic dominance. Management Science, 57, 542–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, C. (1989). An experimental test of several generalized utility theories. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2, 61–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chew, S., Epstein, L., & Segal, U. (1991). Mixture symmetry and quadratic utility. Econometrica, 59, 139–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fechner, G. (1860). Elements of psychophysics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10(2), 171–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, G. W., Johnson, E., McInnes, M. M., & Rutström, E. E. (2005). Risk aversion and incentive effects: comment. American Economic Review, 95, 897–901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hey, J. D., & Orme, C. (1994). Investigating generalizations of expected utility theory using experimental data. Econometrica, 62, 1291–1326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holt, C. A., & Laury, S. K. (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. American Economic Review, 92, 1644–1655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39(4), 341–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laury, S. K. (2005). Pay one or pay all: random selection of one choice for payment. Andrew Young School of Policy Studies Research Paper Series, No. 06-13.

  • Loomes, G. (2005). Modelling the stochastic component of ehaviour in experiments: some issues for the interpretation of data. Experimental Economics, 8, 301–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1998). Testing different stochastic specifications of risky choice. Economica, 65, 581–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loomes, G., Moffatt, P.G., & Sugden, R. (2002). Microeconometric test of alternative stochastic theories of risky choice. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 24, 103–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masclet, D., Colombier, N., Denant-Boemont, L., & Loheac, Y. (2009). Group and individual risk preferences: a lottery-choice experiment with self-employed and salaried workers. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 70, 470–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starmer, C. (2000). Developments in non-expected utility theory: the hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk. Journal of Economic Literature, 38, 332–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starmer, Ch., & Sugden, R. (1989). Probability and juxtaposition effects: an experimental investigation of the common ratio effect. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2, 159–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decision and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. Journal of Business, 59, 251–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, G. (1994). An empirical test of ordinal independence. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 9, 39–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Masclet.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lévy-Garboua, L., Maafi, H., Masclet, D. et al. Risk aversion and framing effects. Exp Econ 15, 128–144 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-011-9293-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-011-9293-5

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation