Probability weighting and the 'level' and 'spacing' of outcomes: An experimental study over losses
In: Journal of risk and uncertainty, Band 39, Heft 1, S. 45-63
ISSN: 1573-0476
10 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Journal of risk and uncertainty, Band 39, Heft 1, S. 45-63
ISSN: 1573-0476
In: Revue d'économie politique, Band 116, Heft 3, S. 383-418
ISSN: 2105-2883
La mise en place d'une procédure monétaire incitative dans le cadre d'une expérience de laboratoire en économie suppose l'existence d'une relation positive étroite entre incitation et effort d'une part et entre effort et performance d'autre part. Pourtant, sur le plan empirique, l'impact des incitations monétaires sur l'effort et/ou la performance apparaît plus mitigé, voire négatif. Nous revenons ici sur un certain nombre d'arguments théoriques et empiriques avancés dans la littérature pour expliquer cet écart. Sont ainsi mis en cause le montant insuffisant des incitations, l'inadéquation des procédures incitatives utilisées, la fragilité du lien entre incitation et effort et/ou entre effort et performance, le rôle ambigu de la motivation intrinsèque. Nous nous intéressons ensuite au cas particulier de l'expérimentation dans des contextes de pertes, qui pose de manière plus fondamentale la question de l'opportunité des incitations monétaires. Nous concluons sur la nécessité d'une utilisation pragmatique de ces dernières selon la nature de l'étude envisagée.
article en révision à la Revue d'Economie Politique ; A strong positive relation is generally assumed between monetary incentives and effort on the one hand, and between effort and performance on the other hand, which legitimates the introduction of monetary incentives in economic laboratory experiments. Still, the empirical impact of incentives on effort and/or performance appears to be rather mixed or even negative. We examine the ins and outs of the debate since they all are, in a more or less radical manner, an invitation to a more pragmatic attitude towards incentives. We first show that embarrassing empirical results cannot be ascribed to an alleged inappropriateness of the incentive procedure (as regards the level of incentives or the procedure itself). We then examine the robustness of the relation between incentives, effort, and performance and elaborate upon the reasons why incentives sometimes do not enhance (or even damage) effort and/or why effort sometimes does not induce better performance (whether it be ineffective or harmful upon it). Next, we discuss the peculiar case of experimentation in the loss domain, which raises the more fundamental question of whether monetary incentives can be introduced. We finally conclude on the need of a pragmatic use of monetary incentives, depending on the very features of the experimental design (including subjects' cognitive and psychological characteristics). ; La mise en place d'une procédure monétaire incitative dans le cadre d'une expérience de laboratoire en économie suppose l'existence d'une relation positive étroite entre incitation et effort d'une part et entre effort et performance d'autre part. Pourtant, sur le plan empirique, l'impact des incitations monétaires sur l'effort et/ou la performance apparaît plus mitigé, voire négatif. Nous revenons ici sur un certain nombre d'arguments théoriques et empiriques avancés dans la littérature pour expliquer cet écart. Sont ainsi mis en cause le montant insuffisant des incitations, l'inadéquation des procédures incitatives utilisées, la fragilité du lien entre incitation et effort et/ou entre effort et performance, le rôle ambigu de la motivation intrinsèque. Nous nous intéressons ensuite au cas particulier de l'expérimentation dans des contextes de pertes, qui pose de manière plus fondamentale la question de l'opportunité des incitations monétaires. Nous concluons sur la nécessité d'une utilisation pragmatique de ces dernières selon la nature de l'étude envisagée.
BASE
article en révision à la Revue d'Economie Politique ; A strong positive relation is generally assumed between monetary incentives and effort on the one hand, and between effort and performance on the other hand, which legitimates the introduction of monetary incentives in economic laboratory experiments. Still, the empirical impact of incentives on effort and/or performance appears to be rather mixed or even negative. We examine the ins and outs of the debate since they all are, in a more or less radical manner, an invitation to a more pragmatic attitude towards incentives. We first show that embarrassing empirical results cannot be ascribed to an alleged inappropriateness of the incentive procedure (as regards the level of incentives or the procedure itself). We then examine the robustness of the relation between incentives, effort, and performance and elaborate upon the reasons why incentives sometimes do not enhance (or even damage) effort and/or why effort sometimes does not induce better performance (whether it be ineffective or harmful upon it). Next, we discuss the peculiar case of experimentation in the loss domain, which raises the more fundamental question of whether monetary incentives can be introduced. We finally conclude on the need of a pragmatic use of monetary incentives, depending on the very features of the experimental design (including subjects' cognitive and psychological characteristics). ; La mise en place d'une procédure monétaire incitative dans le cadre d'une expérience de laboratoire en économie suppose l'existence d'une relation positive étroite entre incitation et effort d'une part et entre effort et performance d'autre part. Pourtant, sur le plan empirique, l'impact des incitations monétaires sur l'effort et/ou la performance apparaît plus mitigé, voire négatif. Nous revenons ici sur un certain nombre d'arguments théoriques et empiriques avancés dans la littérature pour expliquer cet écart. Sont ainsi mis en cause le montant insuffisant des incitations, l'inadéquation des procédures incitatives utilisées, la fragilité du lien entre incitation et effort et/ou entre effort et performance, le rôle ambigu de la motivation intrinsèque. Nous nous intéressons ensuite au cas particulier de l'expérimentation dans des contextes de pertes, qui pose de manière plus fondamentale la question de l'opportunité des incitations monétaires. Nous concluons sur la nécessité d'une utilisation pragmatique de ces dernières selon la nature de l'étude envisagée.
BASE
article en révision à la Revue d'Economie Politique ; A strong positive relation is generally assumed between monetary incentives and effort on the one hand, and between effort and performance on the other hand, which legitimates the introduction of monetary incentives in economic laboratory experiments. Still, the empirical impact of incentives on effort and/or performance appears to be rather mixed or even negative. We examine the ins and outs of the debate since they all are, in a more or less radical manner, an invitation to a more pragmatic attitude towards incentives. We first show that embarrassing empirical results cannot be ascribed to an alleged inappropriateness of the incentive procedure (as regards the level of incentives or the procedure itself). We then examine the robustness of the relation between incentives, effort, and performance and elaborate upon the reasons why incentives sometimes do not enhance (or even damage) effort and/or why effort sometimes does not induce better performance (whether it be ineffective or harmful upon it). Next, we discuss the peculiar case of experimentation in the loss domain, which raises the more fundamental question of whether monetary incentives can be introduced. We finally conclude on the need of a pragmatic use of monetary incentives, depending on the very features of the experimental design (including subjects' cognitive and psychological characteristics). ; La mise en place d'une procédure monétaire incitative dans le cadre d'une expérience de laboratoire en économie suppose l'existence d'une relation positive étroite entre incitation et effort d'une part et entre effort et performance d'autre part. Pourtant, sur le plan empirique, l'impact des incitations monétaires sur l'effort et/ou la performance apparaît plus mitigé, voire négatif. Nous revenons ici sur un certain nombre d'arguments théoriques et empiriques avancés dans la littérature pour expliquer cet écart. Sont ainsi mis en cause le montant insuffisant des incitations, l'inadéquation des ...
BASE
article en révision à la Revue d'Economie Politique ; A strong positive relation is generally assumed between monetary incentives and effort on the one hand, and between effort and performance on the other hand, which legitimates the introduction of monetary incentives in economic laboratory experiments. Still, the empirical impact of incentives on effort and/or performance appears to be rather mixed or even negative. We examine the ins and outs of the debate since they all are, in a more or less radical manner, an invitation to a more pragmatic attitude towards incentives. We first show that embarrassing empirical results cannot be ascribed to an alleged inappropriateness of the incentive procedure (as regards the level of incentives or the procedure itself). We then examine the robustness of the relation between incentives, effort, and performance and elaborate upon the reasons why incentives sometimes do not enhance (or even damage) effort and/or why effort sometimes does not induce better performance (whether it be ineffective or harmful upon it). Next, we discuss the peculiar case of experimentation in the loss domain, which raises the more fundamental question of whether monetary incentives can be introduced. We finally conclude on the need of a pragmatic use of monetary incentives, depending on the very features of the experimental design (including subjects' cognitive and psychological characteristics). ; La mise en place d'une procédure monétaire incitative dans le cadre d'une expérience de laboratoire en économie suppose l'existence d'une relation positive étroite entre incitation et effort d'une part et entre effort et performance d'autre part. Pourtant, sur le plan empirique, l'impact des incitations monétaires sur l'effort et/ou la performance apparaît plus mitigé, voire négatif. Nous revenons ici sur un certain nombre d'arguments théoriques et empiriques avancés dans la littérature pour expliquer cet écart. Sont ainsi mis en cause le montant insuffisant des incitations, l'inadéquation des procédures incitatives utilisées, la fragilité du lien entre incitation et effort et/ou entre effort et performance, le rôle ambigu de la motivation intrinsèque. Nous nous intéressons ensuite au cas particulier de l'expérimentation dans des contextes de pertes, qui pose de manière plus fondamentale la question de l'opportunité des incitations monétaires. Nous concluons sur la nécessité d'une utilisation pragmatique de ces dernières selon la nature de l'étude envisagée.
BASE
In: Journal of risk and uncertainty, Band 28, Heft 3, S. 217-235
ISSN: 1573-0476
International audience In a dynamic (sequential) framework, departures from the independence axiom (IND) are reputed to induce violations of dynamic consistency (DC), which may in turn have undesirable normative consequences. This result thus questions the normative acceptability of non expected-utility (non-EU) models, which precisely relax IND. This paper pursues a twofold objective. The main one is to discuss the normative conclusion: usual arguments linking violations of DC to departures from IND are shown to be actually based on specific (but usually remaining implicit) assumptions which may rightfully be released, so that it is actually possible for a non-EU maximizer to be dynamically consistent and thus avoid normative difficulties. The second objective is to introduce a kind of 'reality principle' (through two other evaluation criteria) in order to mitigate the normative requirement when examining adequate moods for non-EU decision making.
BASE
In: Journal of risk and uncertainty, Band 42, Heft 1, S. 61-83
ISSN: 1573-0476
In: Bulletin of economic research, Band 65, Heft 1, S. 43-64
ISSN: 1467-8586
ABSTRACTFraming has been widely shown to affect decision making. In this paper, we investigate experimentally whether, and to what extent, cooperative behaviour in a Game of Chicken may be impacted by a very basic change in the labelling of the strategies. Our within‐subject experimental design involves two treatments. The only difference between them is that we introduce either a socially‐oriented wording (I cooperate/I do not cooperate) or colours (red/blue) to designate strategies. The level of cooperation appears to be higher in the socially‐oriented context, but only when uncertainty as regards the type of the partner is manipulated, and especially among females.