1 / 18

Sequential decision behavior with reference-point preferences: Theory and experimental evidence

Sequential decision behavior with reference-point preferences: Theory and experimental evidence. - Daniel Schunk - Center for Doctoral Studies in Economics and Sonderforschungsbereich 504 University of Mannheim, Germany. Introduction. Why study sequential decision behavior?

Télécharger la présentation

Sequential decision behavior with reference-point preferences: Theory and experimental evidence

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Sequential decision behavior with reference-point preferences:Theory and experimental evidence - Daniel Schunk - Center for Doctoral Studies in Economicsand Sonderforschungsbereich 504University of Mannheim, Germany

  2. Introduction • Why study sequential decision behavior? • Applications in labour economics, consumer economics, business management, etc. • Why a laboratory experiment? • What does existing literature say? • Heterogeneity • Early stopping • Research question: What is the relationship between individualpreferences and behaviour in sequential decision tasks?

  3. Outline of talk 1 – THEORETICAL PART • The sequential decision problem • Development of 2 models  Hypotheses on the relationship between individual preferences and sequential decision behavior 2 – EMPIRICAL PART • Experimental design • Inference about behavior (preferences, sequential decisions) • Testing the hypotheses- Correlation analysis- Panel duration analysis- Alternative experimental design 3 – CONCLUSIONS

  4. THEORETICALPART

  5. The sequential decision problem Instructions: • Goal: Purchase a good that you value at 100 €. • Good sold at infinitely many locations, visiting a new location costs 1 €. • Price at each location is drawn from a discrete uniform distribution- lower bound: 75 €- upper bound: 150 € • You are allowed to recall previously rejected offers. Important: No losses !

  6. 1 Search Behavior m – minimal price observed so farc– search cost per periodSt ={t,m}– state vector after t steps Optimal search rule: Risk-averse 95 Stopping rule: Constant, then fallingreservation price 90 85 Stop searching as soon as a price lower than or equal to € Xt is found. 80 75 Risk-seeking

  7. m – minimal price observed so farc– search cost per periodF() – distribution function of prices 2 Search Behavior Reference point model: Reference point ? Stop search Higher payoff achieved  Gain F(m-c) Continue search No higher payoff achieved  Loss 1-F(m-c)

  8. 2 Search Behavior Reference point model: Loss-averse 95 Stopping rule: Constant, then fallingreservation price 90 85 Stop searching as soon as a price lower than or equal to € Xt is found. 80 75 Loss-seeking

  9. 1 2 1 2 We have 2 models… EU-preferences Risk aversion explains level of reservation price path RP-preferences Loss aversion explains level of reservation price path

  10. EMPIRICAL PART

  11. Experimental Design: Overview 2 parts of the experiment Obtained data • 1 : Lottery questions • 2 : Price search task Preferences: Risk attitude, loss attitude Sequential decision behavior

  12. Use certainty equivalent method 100% x Experiment: Part 1(Risk Attitude) B € 50% ~ 50% A € Lottery I Lottery II x4 x3 x2 x1 x0 [€] Estimate risk attitudeαi(CRRA) andγi (CARA)  37% risk-neutral, 37% risk-averse, 26% risk-seeking

  13. Experiment: Part 1(Loss Attitude) • Use trade-off method Estimate loss aversion indexλi x 50% ~ 100% 0 € 50% -A € Lottery I Lottery II  69% loss-averse, others loss-neutral

  14. Experiment:Part 2(Price search task) Instructions: • Goal: Purchase a good that you value at 100 €. • Good sold at infinitely many locations, visiting a new location costs 1 €. • Price at each location is drawn from a discrete uniform distribution- lower bound: 75 €- upper bound: 150 € • You are allowed to recall previously rejected offers. • Play 15 payoff-relevant search games, no losses ! • Length of practice period „ad libitum“ Assume each subject i follows a single decision rule • Statistical classification algorithm assigns decision rule di • Considerable heterogeneity in sequential decision behavior

  15. Testable Hypotheses

  16. All results hold under CARA and CRRA specification of the utility function Results (1) • Correlation analysis:Investigate correlation between preference parameters and search parameters Loss attitude correlates, risk attitude does not correlate= Support for(H3)and(H4) • Unobserved effects panel duration analysis:Exploit …discrete time-to-event nature, and …panel nature of data in multivariate model, and explain stopping behavior with preference parameters Loss attitude has predictive power, risk attitude not= Support for(H3) Note: Relationships are particularly strong on a subgroup that is classified based on additional questions about decision behavior

  17. Results (2) (c) Alternative experimental design - uses Abdellaoui-(2000) procedure for elicitation of risk attitude - confirms that risk attitude is not related to search behavior (d) Weber et al.- (2002) psychometric instrument for measuring risk attitude - measures risk attitude on different domains - risk attitude measured on the domain of gambling is related to search behavior

  18. Conclusions • Considerableheterogeneity in sequential decision behavior • Loss aversion helps explain heterogeneity, risk aversion not;confirmed in different experimental designs • Many subjects set reference pointsin sequential decision tasks • Relevance of findings: • In general:Labor and consumer economics, marketing and finance(e.g.: Eckstein/V.d. Bergh, 2005; Gneezy, 2003; Zwick et al., 2003) • In the context of my research:Related to work on life-cycle decision-making and statistical classification of individual differences in dynamic choice contexts

More Related