The Indifferent, the Good Samaritan, the Brave and the Agent in Allais Paradox situation – or How Endowment Effect Influences Our Decision in Case of Allais Paradox?

Open access

Abstract

Background and purpose: Mainstream economic models do not take ownership into consideration. Only after the findings of behavioural economists was endowment effect widely observed. Endowment effect means that goods that one owns are valued higher than other goods not held in endowment. At the same time the principal-agent literature is concerned with how the principal (such as employer) can motivate his agent (say the employee), to act in the principal’s interests and also for their holdings. The main problem is that acting in somebody’s else’s interests can influence our values as well. Moreover, the principal as owner suffers from endowment effect. Both situations can be treated as a risky decision. Risk confuses our rationality in a predictable way.

Design/Methodology/Approach: Due to this it was observed how foreign students from various cultural backgrounds decided (n=186 answers) in a risky financial situation by focusing on Allais’ classic gambles. I also presented their preferences over certain and uncertain outcomes regarding the owner of the final win; i.e. how they choose for themselves or on behalf of one of their best friends. One famous experiment - which tested the descriptive validity of the axioms’ expected utility theory - was Allais. Allais handled probabilities and outcomes in high hypothetical payoff financial gamble situations; he found that when offering two similar options, the common consequences will not be removed by the actors. I was interested in what happens when the actors take risks on behalf of others. It was used between-subjects technique on an extended multicultural sample. Regarding the two different topics, three hypotheses were tested (1); based on Allais paradox (2); observed ownerships (3); the comparison of two phenomena.

Results: The results show that the subjects responded differently when they needed to decide about their own properties rather when their friends’ properties were concerned. When a sure safe outcome was offered to the subjects, they took more risk on behalf of their friends rather than own. Moreover, the subjects do not take into consideration that the same attributes must be ignored, so Allais paradox was verified.

Conclusion: The goal of this paper is then twofold. First, it was established a conceptual link between Allais-type behaviour and ownership problem. Second, Allais axiom was used to characterize different roles. Knowing predictable patterns of seemingly irrational heuristics in human behaviour can improve economic theory. At the same time, this knowledge helps us to avoid irrational decisions.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Allais M. (1988 December 9). An Outline of My Main Contributions to Economic Science. Lecture notes distributed in Nobel Lectures. France Paris. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/1988/allais-lecture.htmlhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00134634

  • Andreoni J. & Sprenger C. (2010). Certain and Uncertain Utility. The Allais Paradox and Five Decision Theory Phenomena. Levine’s Working Paper Archive 926159295. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/83da/ed55d89ad8d0b94ac72e509dbb118983f069.pdf

  • Arrow K. J. (1984). The Economics of Agency. Stanford University: A Report of the Center for Research on Organizational Efficiency www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA151436

  • Bakacsi Gy. (2015). Változó vezetési paradigma – változó megbízó ügynök probléma? [Changing leader-paradigm – changing principal-agent problem?] In Bakacsi Gy. –Balaton K. (Eds.): Vezetés és szervezet társadalmi kontextusban: Tanulmányok Dobák Miklós 60. születésnapja tiszteletére. Budapest Akadémiai Press 29-54.

  • Baillon A. Bleichrodt H. Liu L. & Wakker P. P. (2016). Group Decision Rules and Group Rationality under Risk. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 52(3) 99-116 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11166-016-9237-8

  • Birnbaum M. H. (2007). Tests of branch splitting and branch-splitting independence in Allais paradoxes with positive and mixed consequences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 102 154-173 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.04.004

  • Birnbaum M. H. (2008). New Paradox of Risky Decision Making. Psychological Review. 115(2) 463-501.

  • Calabuig V. Fatas E. Olcina G. & Rodriguez-Lara I. (2016). Carry a big stick or no stick at all Punishment and endowment heterogeneity in the trust game. Journal of Economic Psychology 157 153-171 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2016.09.006

  • Camerer C. (1998). Bounded Rationality in Individual Decision Making. Experimental Economics. 1 163-183.

  • Charness G. Gneezy U. & Kuhn M. A. (2012). Experimental methods: Between-subject and within-subject design. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. 81(1) 1-8 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2011.08.009

  • Chang S. Dee T. S. Tse C. W. & Yu L. (2016). Be a Good Samaritan to a Good Samaritan: Field evidence of other-regarding preferences in China. China Economic Review 41 23-33 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2016.08.007

  • Da Silva S. Baldo D. & Matsushita M. (2013). Biological correlates of the Allais paradox. Applied Economics 45(5). 555-568 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2011.607133

  • Dupont D. Y. & Lee G. S. (2002). The Endowment Effect Status Quo Bias and Loss Aversion: Rational Alternative Explanation. The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 25(1) 87–101.

  • Falk A. Fehr E. & Fishbacher U. (2008). Testing theories of fairness—Intentions matter. Games and Economic Behavior 62(1) 287-303 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2007.06.001

  • Fan Ch. (2002). Allais paradox in the small. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 49 411–421 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2681(02)00012-4

  • Fehr E. & Fischbacher U. (2003). The nature of human altruism. Nature 425 785-791. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature02043

  • Hámori B. (2003). Érzelemgazdaságtan Budapest Kossuth Press.

  • Hertwig R. Barron G. Weber E. U. & Erev I. (2004). Decisions from Experience and the Effect of Rare Events in Risky Choice. Psychological Science 15(8) 534 – 539 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00715.x

  • Hofstede G. (2017). The Hofstede Centre [Online]. Retrieved February 2017 from https://geert-hofstede.com

  • Huck S. & Müller W. (2012). Allais for all: Revisiting the paradox in a large representative sample. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 44(3) 261–293 http://dx.doi.org/1007/s11166-012-9142-8

  • Maletič D. Maletič M. Al-Najjar B. Gotzamani K. Gianni M. Kalinowski T. B. & Gomišček B. (2017). Contingency Factors Influencing Implementation of Physical Asset Management Practices. Organizacija 50 3-16 http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/orga-2017-0003

  • Kádár B. & Reicher R. Z. (2016). Education Supported by SME vs. SME Supported by Education. Proceedings of FIKUSZ 2016 Budapest 73-79.

  • Khalil E. L. (2015). Temptations as Impulsivity: How far are Regret and Allais Paradox from Shoplifting? Economic Modelling 51 551-559 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2015.09.016

  • Kolnhofer-Derecskei A. & Nagy V. (2017). Comparing risk definitions giving by Hungarian and Belgian Bachelor Students. Thinking together. In Press.

  • Kolnhofer-Derecskei A. & Nagy V. (2016). Under Risk. Proceedings of FIKUSZ ’16 Symposium for Young Researchers 161-172. Retrieved February 2017 from https://kgk.uni-obuda.hu/sites/default/files/16_Derecskei_Nagy.pdf

  • Kolnhofer-Derecskei A. (2017). How would you decide on behalf of your friend? Takács I. (Eds). Management Enterprise and Benchmarking in the 21 st centuryGlobal challenges local answers” Budapest Obuda University. 195-205. Retrieved July 2017 from http://kgk.uni-obuda.hu/publikaciok/management-enterprise-benchmarking-IV

  • Oliver A. (2003). A quantitative and qualitative test of the Allais paradox using health outcomes. Journal of Economic Psychology 24 35-48 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870(02)00153-8

  • Palmer C. J. Paton B. Ngo T. T. Thomson R. H. Hohwy J. & Miller S. M. (2013). Individual Differences in Moral Behaviour: A Role for Response to Risk and Uncertainty? Neuroethics 6 97-103 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12152-012-9158-4

  • Reb J. & Conolly T. (2007). Possession feelings of ownership and the endowment effect. Judgment and Decision Making 2(2) 107–114.

  • Robison L. J. Shupp R. S. & Myers R. J. (2010). Expected Utility Paradoxes. The Journal of Socio-Economics 39 187-193 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2009.12.005

  • Ross S. A. (1973). The Economic Theory of Agency: The Principal’s Problem. American Economic Review 63(2) 134-39. Retrieved February 2017 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1817064?origin=JSTOR-pdf

  • Simon H. (1971). Designing Organizations for an Information-rich World. In Greenberger M. (Eds.) Computers Communications and the Public Interest. The Johns Hopkins Press pp. 38-72.

  • Simon H. (1978). Rational Decision-Making in Business Organization. Nobel Memorial Lecture. 8th of December 1978.

  • Small D. & Loewenstein G. (2003). Helping a Victim or Helping the Victim: Altruism and Identifiability. The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 26(1) 5–16.

  • Thaler R. H. (1980). Toward a Positive Theory of Consumer Choice. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 1(1) 39-60 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681(80)90051-7

  • Tversky A. & Kahneman D. (1974). Judgement under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science New Series Vol. 185 No. 4157. (Sep. 27 1974) pp. 1124-1131 http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0036-8075%2819740927%293%3A185%3A4157%3C1124%3AJUUHAB%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M

  • Van de Kuilen G. & Wakker P. P. (2006). Learning in the Allais paradox. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 33(3) 155–164 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11166-006-0390-3

  • Wu G. & Gonzales R. (1998). Common Consequence Conditions in Decision Making under Risk. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 16 115–139.

  • Zoltay Paprika Z. & Nagy V. (2012). Assessment of Creativity on the Job Market. Procedia Economics and Finance 3 166-181 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(12)00136-0

Search
Journal information
Impact Factor

CiteScore 2018: 0.87

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.179
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.529

Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 371 198 13
PDF Downloads 152 97 3