Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-f9bf7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-17T06:10:46.800Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Validity of the Random Lottery Incentive System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Robin P. Cubitt ,
Chris Starmer  and
Robert Sugden
Robin P. Cubitt
Affiliation:
School of Economic and Social Studies, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, England
Chris Starmer
Affiliation:
School of Economic and Social Studies, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, England
Robert Sugden
Affiliation:
School of Economic and Social Studies, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, England
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The random lottery incentive system is widely used in experimental economics to motivate subjects. This paper investigates its validity. It reports three experiments which compare responses given to decision tasks which are embedded in random lottery designs with responses in ‘single choice’ designs in which each subject faces just one task for real. The experiments were designed to detect cross-task contamination effects in the random lottery treatment. No significant differences between treatments, and no significant contamination effects, were found. Over the three experiments, observed differences between the treatments are adequately explained as sampling variation.

Keywords

random lottery incentive system

JEL classification

C91: Laboratory, Individual Behavior C90: General
Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , September 1998 , pp. 115 - 131
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 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.)

References

Allais, M. (1953). “Le Comportement de L’homme Rationnel Devant le Risque: Critique des Postulats et Axiomes de L’ecole Americaine.” Econometrica. 21, 503–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battalio, R.C., Kagel, J.H., and Jiranyakul, K. (1990). “Testing Between Alternative Models of Choice Under Uncertainty: Some Initial Results.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 3, 25–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beattie, J. and Loomes, G. (1997). “The Impact of Incentives Upon Risky Choice Experiments.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 14, 149–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernasconi, M. (1994). “Nonlinear Preferences and Two-Stage Lotteries.” Economic Journal. 104, 54–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, C. (1989). “An Experimental Test of Several Generalized Expected Utility Theories.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 2, 61–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, C. (1995). “Individual Decision Making.” In Kagel, John and Roth, Alvin (eds.). Handbook of Experimental Economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, chap. 8.Google Scholar
Conlisk, J. (1989). “Three Variants on the Allais Example.” American Economic Review. 79, 392–407.Google Scholar
Davis, D.D. and Holt, C.A. (1993). Experimental Economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, G.W. (1994). “Expected Utility Theory and the Experimentalists.” Empirical Economics. 19, 223–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirshleifer, J. and Riley, J.G. (1992). The Analytics of Uncertainty and Information. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, C.A. (1986). “Preference Reversals and the Independence Axiom.” American Economic Review. 76, 508–515.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979). “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk.” Econometrica. 47, 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machina, M. (1982). “Expected Utility Analysis Without the Independence Axiom.” Econometrica. 50, 277–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, V.L. (1982). “Microeconomic Systems as an Experimental Science.” American Economic Review. 72, 923–955.Google Scholar
Starmer, C. (1992). “Testing New Theories of Choice Under Uncertainty Using the Common Consequence Effect.” Review of Economic Studies. 59, 813–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starmer, C. and Sugden, R. (1989). “Probability and Juxtaposition Effects: An Experimental Investigation of the Common Ratio Effect.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 2, 159–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starmer, C. and Sugden, R. (1991). “Does the Random-Lottery Incentive System Elicit True Preferences? An Experimental Investigation.” American Economic Review. 81, 971–978.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1981). “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice.” Science. 211, 453–458.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilcox, N.T. (1993). “Lottery Choice: Incentives, Complexity and Decision Time.” Economic Journal. 103, 1397–1417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar