Testing Distributional Dependence in the Becker-DeGroot-Marschak ...

Recommendations

Info

Kahneman, Daniel, Jack L. Knetch, and Richard Thaler. 1990. “Experinental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem.” Journal of Political Economy 98(6): 1325-1348. Kahneman, Daniel and Amos Tversky. 1979. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk.” Econometrica 47: 263-292. Karni, E. and Z. Safra. 1987. “Preference reversals and the observability of preferences by experimental methods.” Econometrica 55: 675-685. Keller, L. Robin, Uzi Segal and Tan Wang. 1993. “The Becker-DeGroot-Marschak Mechanism and Generalized Utility Theories: Theoretical Predictions and Empirical Observations.” Theory and Decision 34: 83-97. Kőszegi, Botond and Matthew Rabin. 2006. “A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 121(4): 1133-1165. Kőszegi, Botond and Matthew Rabin. 2007. “Reference-Dependent Risk Attitudes.” American Economic Review 97(4): 1047-1073. Lichtenstein, Sarah and Paul Slovic. 1971. “Reversals of Preferences Between Bids and Choices in Gambling Decisions.” Journal of Experimental Psychology 89: 46-55. List, John A. 2003. “Does Market Experience Eliminate Market Anomalies?” Quarterly Journal of Economics 118(1): 41-71. List, John A. and C. A. Gallet. 2001. “What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values? Evidence from a Meta-Analysis.” Environmental and Resource Economics 20(3): 241-254. Lusk, Jayson L., Corinne Alexander, and Matthew C. Rousu. 2007. “Designing Experimental Auctions for Marketing Research: The Effect of Values, Distributions, and Mechanisms on Incentives for Truthful Bidding.” Review of Marketing Science 5: article 3. Machina, Mark J. 1987. “Does Choice Under Uncertainty: Problems Solved and Unsolved.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives 1(1): 121-154. 40
Mazar, Nina, Botond Kőszegi, and Dan Ariely. 2009. “Price-Sensitive Preferences,” Mimeo. Noussair, Charles, Stephane Robin, and Bernard Ruffieux. 2004. “Revealing consumers' willingness-to-pay: a comparison of the BDM mechanism and the Vickrey auction.” Journal of Economic Psychology 25(6): 725-741. Safra, Zvi, Uzi Segal, and Avia Spivak. 1990. “The Becker-DeGroot-Marschak Mechanism and Nonexpected Utility: A Testable Approach.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 3: 177-190. Segal, Uzi. 1988. “Does the Preference Reversal Phenomenon Necessarily Contradict the Independence Axiom?” American Economic Review 78(1): 233-236. Plott, Charles and Kathryn Zeiler. 2005. “The Willingness-to-Pay—Willingness to Accept Gap, the ‘Endowment Effect,’ Subject Misconceptions, and Experimental Procedures for Eliciting Valuations.” American Economic Review 95(3): 530-545. Tversky, Amos and Daniel Kahneman. 1974. “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.” Science 185(4157): 1124-1131. Vickrey, William. 1961. “Counterspeculation, Auctions, and Competitive Sealed Tenders.” Journal of Finance 16: 8-37. Wertenbroch, Klaus and Bernd Skiera. 2002. “Measuring Consumers’ Willingness to Pay at the Point of Purchase.” Journal of Marketing Research 39: 228-241. 41
Page 1 and 2: Testing Distributional Dependence i
Page 3 and 4: compatibility and relative ease of
Page 5 and 6: willing to accept (WTA) to sell the
Page 7 and 8: Hypothesis 3 (Comprehension): More
Page 9 and 10: effect of varying distributions (ap
Page 11 and 12: high-support distributions with mas
Page 13 and 14: esponses was recorded, so the infor
Page 15 and 16: different distribution—identical
Page 17 and 18: Since some of the subjects returned
Page 19 and 20: zero by instruction type, and it al
Page 21 and 22: Table 8 holds the support and the a
Page 23 and 24: The evidence presented in Figure 3,
Page 25 and 26: undesirably high prices when faced
Page 27 and 28: went dow[n] because i expected it t
Page 29 and 30: 5 Discussion As seen in Sections 4.
Page 31 and 32: maximum monetary compensation—reg
Page 33 and 34: test statistic of 0.6495 (with a co
Page 35 and 36: actual valuations for the item rema
Page 37 and 38: If the range or other attributes of
Page 39: 7 References Batemen, Ian J., Richa
Page 43 and 44: Panel B. Round 2 WTP (Half of the s
Page 45 and 46: Figure 4. WTP Elicitations by Round
Page 47 and 48: Figure 6. Measured Risk Attitude an
Page 49 and 50: variance of first elicitations over
Page 51 and 52: Table 1. Summary of the Distributio
Page 53 and 54: Table 3. Summary of Categorical Sur
Page 55 and 56: Table 5. Number of Subjects with Si
Page 57 and 58: Table 7. Pairwise Distributional Te
Page 59 and 60: Panel B. Mass to the Left, High Sup
Page 61 and 62: #2 #2 #2 Panel D. Mass to the Right
Page 63 and 64: Appendix A Screenshots of the Exper
Page 65 and 66: [Second page of the instructions. T
Page 67 and 68: Figure A.3. Screenshot of the Holt-
Page 69 and 70: Survey Questions 1. What is your fi
Page 82 and 83: Appendix C Subject responses to the

Testing Distributional Dependence in the Becker-DeGroot-Marschak ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?