Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-v2ckm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-17T08:30:58.194Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Whose money is it anyway? Using prepaid incentives in experimental economics to create a natural environment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Mosi Rosenboim  and
Tal Shavit
Mosi Rosenboim
Affiliation:
Department of Management, Guilford Glazer Faculty of Business and Management, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be'er Sheva, 84105, Israel Sapir Academic College, Department of Applied Economics, Sderot, 79165, Israel
Tal Shavit*
Affiliation:
School of Business Administration, College of Management Academic Studies, Rishon Lezion, 75190, Israel
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Simulating a real world environment is of utmost importance for achieving accurate and meaningful results in experimental economics. Offering monetary incentives is a common method of creating this environment. In general, experimenters provide the rewards at the time of experiment. In this paper, we argue that receiving the reward at the time of the experiment may lead participants to make decisions as if the money they are using were not their own. To solve this problem, we devised a “prepaid mechanism” that encourages participants to use the money as if it were their own.

Keywords

Second-price auctionLoss aversionTrust gameMonetary incentiveExperimentFinancial decision makingReward

JEL classification

C91: Laboratory, Individual Behavior
Type
Original Paper
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , March 2012 , pp. 145 - 157
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 Economic Science Association

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.)

Footnotes

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-011-9294-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

References

Ackert, L. F., Charupat, N., Church, B. K., & Deaves, R. (2006). An experimental examination of the house money effect in a multi-period setting. Experimental Economics, 9(1), 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995). Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and Economic Behavior, 10, 122–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonner, S. E., Hastie, R., Sprinkle, G. B., & Young, S. M. (2000). A review of the effects of financial incentives on performance in laboratory tasks: implications for management accounting. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 12, 19–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, P., & Zank, H. (2005). Loss aversion behavior. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 31(3), 301–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, P., Chappel, N., Rosa, R. S., & Walter, T. (2006). The reach of the disposition effect: large sample evidence across investor classes. International Review of Finance, 6(1-2), 43–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calia, P., & Strazzera, E. (2001). A sample selection model for protest responses in contingent valuation analyses. Statistical, 61(3), 473–485.Google Scholar
Clark, J. (2002). House money effects in public goods experiments. Experimental Economics, 5(3), 223231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chakravarty, S., Harrison, G. W., Haruvy, E. E., & Rutström, E. E. (2009). Are you risk averse over other people's money? Working Paper, University of Central Florida.Google Scholar
Corrigan, J. R., & Rousu, M. (2006). Posted prices and bid affiliation: evidence from experimental auctions. American Journal Of Agricultural Economics, 88, 1078–1090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coursey, D. L., Hovis, J. L., & Schulze, W. D. (1987). The disparity between willingness to accept and willingness to pay measures of value. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 102, 679–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, L. C., Smith, V. L., & Walker, J. K. (1992). Theory and misbehavior of first price auctions: comment. American Economic Review, 82(5), 1392–1412.Google Scholar
Davis, L. R., Joyce, B. P., & Roelofs, M. R. (2010). My money or yours: house money payment effects. Experimental Economics, 13(2), 189–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ert, E., & Erev, I. (2008). The rejection of attractive gambles, loss aversion, and the lemon avoidance heuristic. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29, 715–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ert, E., & Erev, I. (2010). On the descriptive value of loss aversion in decisions under risk. Harvard Business School Working Paper 10–056.Google Scholar
Fiore, A. (2009). Experimental economics: some methodological notes. MPRA Paper No. 12498. http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/12498/. Accessed 19 June 2011.Google Scholar
Friedman, D. (1992). Theory and misbehavior of first price auctions: comment. American Economic Review, 82(5), 1374–1378.Google Scholar
Frino, A., Grant, J., & Johnstone, D. (2008). The house money effect and local traders on the Sydney Futures Exchange. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 16, 8–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goeree, J. K., & Offerman, T. (2003). Winner's curse without overbidding. European Economic Review, 47(4), 625–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haab, T. (1999). Nonparticipation or misspecification? The impacts of nonparticipation on dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 14, 443–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halstead, J. M., Luloff, A. E., & Stevens, T. H. (1992). Protest bidders in contingent valuation. Northeastern. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 21, 160–169.Google Scholar
Harinck, F., Van-Dijk, E., Van-Beest, I., & Mersmann, P. (2007). When gains loom larger than losses: reversed loss aversion for small amounts of money. Psychological Science, 18, 1099–1105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harrison, G. W. (1989). Theory and misbehavior of first price auctions. American Economic Review, 79(4), 749–762.Google Scholar
Harrison, G.W. (2007). House money effects in public goods experiments: comment. Experimental Economics, 10(4), 429–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hertwig, R., & Ortmann, A. (2001). Experimental practices in economics: a methodological challenge for psychologists? Behavioral and Brain Science, 24, 383–403.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holt, C. A., & Laury, S. K. (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. American Economic Review, 92(5), 1644–1655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobsson, K. M., & Dragun, A. K. (1996). Contingent valuation and endangered species. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jorgensen, B. S., & Syme, G. J. (2000). Protest responses and willingness to pay: attitude toward paying for stormwater pollution abatement. Ecological Economics, 33(2), 251–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kachelmeier, S. J., & Shehata, M. (1992). Examining risk preferences under high monetary incentives: experimental evidence from the People's Republic of China. The American Economic Review, 82(5), 1120–1141.Google Scholar
Kagel, J. H. (1995). Auctions: a survey of experimental research. In Kagel, J. H. & Roth, A. E. (Eds.), The handbook of experimental economics (pp. 501–585). Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kagel, J. H., & Roth, A. E. (1992). Theory and misbehavior of first price auctions: comment. American Economic Review, 82(5), 1379–1391.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of choice under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krahnen, J. P., Rieck, C., & Theissen, E. (1997). Inferring risk attitudes from certainty equivalents: some lessons from an experimental study. Journal of Economic Psychology, 18, 469–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, Y., Tsai, C., Wang, M., & Zhu, N. (2006). House money effect: evidence from market makers at Taiwan futures exchange. Working paper. University of California, Davis and National Chengchi University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malhotra, D., & Murnighan, J. K. (2002). The effect of contracts on interpersonal trust. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 534–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merlo, A., & Schotter, A. (1992). Theory and misbehavior of first price auctions: comment. American Economic Review, 82(5), 1413–1425.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. C., & Carson, R. T. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Read, D. (2005). Monetary incentives, what are they good for? Journal of Economic Methodology, 12(2), 265–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redelmeier, D. A., & Tversky, A. (1992). On the framing of multiple prospects. Psychological Science, 3, 191–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinstein, D., & Riener, G. (2009). House money effects on charitable giving: an experiment. Working paper. University of Essex.Google Scholar
Roth, A. E. (1995). Introduction to experimental economics. In Roth, A. & Kagel, J. (Eds.), Handbook of experimental economics (pp. 3–109). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Roth, A. E., & Ockenfels, A. (2002). Last-minute bidding and the rules for ending second-price auctions: evidence from eBay and Amazon auctions on the internet. American Economic Review, 92(4), 10931103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shavit, T., Sonsino, D., & Benzion, U. (2001). A comparative study of lotteries: evaluation in class and on the web. Journal of Economic Psychology, 22, 483–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shefrin, H. H., & Thaler, R. H. (1988). The behavioral life-cycle hypothesis. Economic inquiry, 26, 609643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shogren, J. F., Cho, S., Koo, C., List, J., Park, C., Polo, P., & Wilhelmi, R. (2001). Auction mechanisms and the measurement of WTP and WTA. Resource and Energy Economics, 23, 97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shyamsundar, P., & Kramer, R. A. (1996). Tropical forest protection: an empirical analysis of the costs borne by local people. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 31, 129–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strazzera, E., Scarpa, R., Calia, P., Garrod, G., & Willis, K. (2000). Modeling zero values in contingent valuation surveys. Note di Lavoro Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, 55/00.Google Scholar
Thaler, R. (1987). The psychology of choice and the assumptions of economics. In Roth, A. E. (Ed.), Laboratory experimentation in economics: six points of views. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thaler, R. H. (1980). Towards a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1, 39–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thaler, R. H., & Johnson, E. (1990). Gambling with the house money and trying to break even: the effects of prior outcomes on risky choice. Management Science, 36, 643–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thaler, R. H., Tversky, A., Kahneman, D., & Swartz, A. (1997). The effect of myopia and loss aversion on risk taking: an experimental test. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 647–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tom, S. M., Fox, C. R., Trepel, C., & Poldrack, R. A. (2007). The neural basis of loss aversion in decision making under risk. Science, 315, 515–518.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vickrey, W. (1961). Counterspeculation, auctions, and competitive sealed tenders. Journal of Finance, 16(1), 8–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, M., & Zuchel, H. (2005). How do prior outcomes affect risk attitude? Comparing escalation of commitment and the house-money effect. Decision Analysis, 2(1), 30–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, J. C., Groothuis, P. A., & Blomquist, G. C. (1993). Testing for non-response and sample selection bias in contingent valuation. Economic Letters, 41, 215–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Rosenboim and Shavit supplementary material

Online Appendix 1
Download Rosenboim and Shavit supplementary material(File)
File 36.4 KB
Supplementary material: File

Rosenboim and Shavit supplementary material

Online Appendix 2
Download Rosenboim and Shavit supplementary material(File)
File 37.9 KB
Supplementary material: File

Rosenboim and Shavit supplementary material

Online Appendix 3
Download Rosenboim and Shavit supplementary material(File)
File 36.4 KB
Supplementary material: File

Rosenboim and Shavit supplementary material

Online Appendix 4
Download Rosenboim and Shavit supplementary material(File)
File 66 KB