Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T18:21:11.022Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How certain is the uncertainty effect?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Ondrej Rydval ,
Andreas Ortmann ,
Sasha Prokosheva  and
Ralph Hertwig
Ondrej Rydval
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute of Economics, Jena, Germany CERGE-EI, Prague, Czech Republic
Andreas Ortmann*
Affiliation:
School of Economics, Australian School of Business, UNSW, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
Sasha Prokosheva
Affiliation:
CERGE-EI, Prague, Czech Republic Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Ralph Hertwig
Affiliation:
University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
*
e-mail: a.ortmann@unsw.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We replicate three tasks for which Gneezy, List and Wu (Q. J. Econ. 121(4):1283—1309, 2006) document the so-called uncertainty effect: People value a binary lottery over non-monetary outcomes less than other people value the lottery's worse outcome. While the authors implement verbal lottery descriptions, we use a physical lottery format and also provide subjects with complete information about the goods they are to value. We observe for all three pricing tasks that subjects’ willingness to pay for the lottery is significantly higher than other subjects’ willingness to pay for the lottery's worse outcome.

Keywords

Decision making under riskFramingExperimentsTask ambiguity

JEL classification

C91: Laboratory, Individual Behavior C93: Field Experiments C81: Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Microeconomic Data • Data Access D83: Search • Learning • Information and Knowledge • Communication • Belief • Unawareness

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , December 2009 , pp. 473 - 487
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Andersen, S., Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutstrom, E. E. (2007). Valuation using multiple price list formats. Applied Economics, 39(6), 675–682.10.1080/00036840500462046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., Hell, W., & Blank, H. (1988). Presentation and content: The use of base rates as a continuous variable. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14(3), 513–525.Google Scholar
Gneezy, U., List, J. A., & Wu, G. (2006). The uncertainty effect: When a risky prospect is valued less than its worst outcome. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(4), 1283–1309.10.1093/qje/121.4.1283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greiner, B. (2004). The online recruitment system ORSEE 2.0—A guide for the organization of experiments in economics. University of Cologne, Working Paper Series in Economics 10.Google Scholar
Grether, D. M., & Plott, C. R. (1979). Economic theory of choice and the preference reversal phenomenon. American Economic Review, 69(4), 623–638.Google Scholar
Harrison, G. W. (1992). Theory and misbehavior of first-price auctions: Reply. American Economic Review, 82(5), 1426–1443.Google Scholar
Harrison, G. W., & Rutstroem, E. E. (2008). Experimental evidence on the existence of hypothetical bias in value elicitation methods. In Plott, C. R. & Smith, V. L. (Eds.), Handbook of experimental economics results (Vol. 1). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Harrison, G. W., List, J. A., & Towe, C. (2007). Naturally occurring preferences and exogenous laboratory experiments: A case study of risk aversion. Econometrica, 75(2), 433–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hertwig, R., & Ortmann, A. (2001). Experimental practices in economics: A methodological challenge for psychologists? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(3), 383–402.Google ScholarPubMed
Hertwig, R., Barron, G., Weber, E. U., & Erev, I. (2004). Decisions from experience and the effect of rare events in risky choice. Psychological Science, 15(8), 534–539.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horowitz, J. K. (2006). The Becker-DeGroot-Marschak mechanism is not necessarily incentive compatible, even for non-random goods. Economics Letters, 93(1), 6–11.10.1016/j.econlet.2006.03.033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karni, E., & Safra, Z. (1987). Preference reversals and the observability of preferences by experimental methods. Econometrica, 55(3), 675–685.10.2307/1913606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keren, G., & Willemsen, M. C. (2009). Decision anomalies, experimenter assumptions, and participants’ comprehension: Re-evaluating the uncertainty effect. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 22(3), 301–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koehler, J. J. (1996). The base rate fallacy reconsidered: Descriptive, normative, and methodological challenges. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19(1), 1–53.10.1017/S0140525X00041157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortmann, A., Prokosheva, S., Rydval, O., & Hertwig, R. (2007). Valuing a risky prospect less than its worst outcome: Uncertainty effect or task ambiguity? Jena Economic Research Paper 2007-038 and CERGE-EI Working Paper 334.10.2139/ssrn.1489506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rydval, O., & Ortmann, A. (2004). How financial incentives and cognitive abilities affect task performance in laboratory settings: An illustration. Economics Letters, 85(3), 315–320.10.1016/j.econlet.2004.04.020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonsohn, U. (2009). Direct risk aversion: Evidence from risky prospects valued below their worst outcome. Psychological Science, 20(6), 686–692.10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02349.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sonsino, D. (2008). Disappointment aversion in internet bidding-decisions. Theory and Decision, 64(2-3), 363–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, E. U., Böckenholt, U., Hilton, D. J., & Wallace, B. (1993). Determinants of diagnostic hypothesis generation: Effects of information, base rates, and experience. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(5), 1151–1164.Google ScholarPubMed