{"title":"An Experimental Analysis of the Prize-Probability Tradeoff in Stopping Problems","authors":"Yair Antler, Ayala Arad","doi":"10.1162/rest_a_01366","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract We experimentally examine how individuals commit to a cutoff stopping rule when facing a sequence of independent lotteries. We identify two main behavior patterns: (1) a small share of participants consistently choose stopping rules whose gain bound (i.e., the accumulated gain at which the sequence stops) is larger than the loss bound, and (2) a larger share of participants consistently choose rules whose loss bound is larger than the gain bound. We introduce a procedural choice model that accounts for these patterns and show that the behavior of most of our participants is inconsistent with prominent theories of decision under risk.","PeriodicalId":275408,"journal":{"name":"The Review of Economics and Statistics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Review of Economics and Statistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_01366","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Abstract We experimentally examine how individuals commit to a cutoff stopping rule when facing a sequence of independent lotteries. We identify two main behavior patterns: (1) a small share of participants consistently choose stopping rules whose gain bound (i.e., the accumulated gain at which the sequence stops) is larger than the loss bound, and (2) a larger share of participants consistently choose rules whose loss bound is larger than the gain bound. We introduce a procedural choice model that accounts for these patterns and show that the behavior of most of our participants is inconsistent with prominent theories of decision under risk.