Many studies have examined the bid price (Willingness to Pay or WTP) and the Ask price (Willingness to Accept or WTA) for ordinary real products, such as coffee mugs, candy bars, and pens, or for lotteries. This study analyzes the determinants of bid-and-ask prices in lotteries. Using a second-price auction, we elicit participants' WTP and WTA for lotteries. Participants are divided into groups according to their risk attitude and win-loving behavior. Our results indicate that greater risk-seeking and higher win-loving increase the WTP, while higher risk-seeking and lower win-loving increase the WTA. Therefore, experimental studies should separate participants into different risk-seeking and win-loving groups to explain WTP and WTA disparities for risky assets. Moreover win-loving behavior should be taken into consideration in the decision-making process with respect to asset pricing.
AnderhubV., GneezyU., GuthW., and SonsinoD. (2001). “On the interaction of risk and time preferences – an experimental study,” German Economic Review, 2(3), pp. 239–253.
2.
BeckerG.M., DegrootM.H., and MarschakJ. (1964). “Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method” Behavioral Science9, pp. 226–232.
3.
CherryT., FrykblomP., ListJ., ShogrenJ., and WilliamsM. (2004). “Laboratory Test beds and Non-Market. Valuation: The Case of Bidding Behavior in a Second-Price Auction with an Outside Option” Environmental and Resource Economics, 29, pp. 285–294.
4.
CorriganJ.R., and RousuM. (2006). “Posted prices and bid affiliation: Evidence from experimental auctions” American journal of Agriculture Economics88, pp. 1078–1090.
5.
GoereeJ.K., and OffermanT. (2003). “Winner's curse without overbidding,” European Economic Review47, pp. 625–644.
6.
HeyJ.D., and OrmeC. (1994). “Investigating generalizations of Expected Utility theory using experimental data,” Econometrica62, pp. 1291–1326.
7.
HoltC.A., and LauryS.K.(2002). “Risk aversion and Incentive Effects,” The American Economic Review92, pp. 1644–1655.
8.
HorowitzJ.K., and McConnellK.E. (2002). “A Review of WTA/WTP studies,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management44, pp. 426–447.
9.
KachelmeierS.J., and ShehataM. (1992). “Examining risk preferences under high monetary incentives: experimental evidence from 1the people's Republic of China,” The American Economic Review82, pp. 1120–1141.
10.
KagelJ.H., and LevinD. (1986). “The Winner's Curse and Public Information in Common Value Auctions,” American Economic Review76, pp. 894–920.
11.
KagelJ. (1995). “Auctions: a survey of experimental research,” in KagelJ. & RothA. (Eds.), Handbook of Experimental Economics, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, pp. 501–585.
12.
KahnemanD., KnetschJ., and ThalerR. (1990). “Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the coase theorem” Journal of Political Economy98, pp. 1325–1348.
13.
KahnemanD., KnetschJ.L., and ThalerR.H. (1991). “Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion and status quo bias,” Journal of Economic Perspectives5, pp. 193–206.
14.
KrahnenJ.P., RieckC., and TheissenE. (1997). “Inferring risk attitudes from certainty equivalents: Some lessons from an experimental study,” Journal of Economic Psychology18, pp. 469–486.
15.
KrebsD., BergerM., and FerligojA. (2000). “Approaching achievement motivation -comparing factor analysis and cluster analysis,” in FerligojA., and MrvarA. (Eds.), New Approaches in Applied Statistics, Metodološki zvezki, 16, Ljubljana: FDV.
16.
LindB., and PlottC.R. (1991). “The winner's curse: experiments with buyers and with sellers,” The American Economic Review81, pp. 335–346.
17.
LoomesG., and WeberM. (1997). Endowment effect for risky assets. in AlbersGuth, Ham-merstein and Moldovano (Eds.), Understanding Strategic Interaction: Essays in Honor of Rein-hard Selten, Springer, pp. 494–512.
18.
MorrisonG.C. (2000). “The endowment effect and expected utility,” Scottish Journal of Political Economy47, pp. 183–197.
19.
PlottC.R., and ZeilerK. (2005) “The Willingness to Pay–Willingness to Accept Gap, the “Endowment Effect,” Subject Misconceptions, and Experimental Procedures for Eliciting Valuations,” The American Economic Review95, pp. 530–545.
20.
ShahrabaniS., ShavitT., and BenzionU. (2008). “WTP and WTA in competitive and non-competitive environments,” The Journal of Judgment and Decision Making3, pp. 153–161.
21.
ShavitT., SonsinoD., and BenzionU. (2001). “On the evaluation of lotteries and options – An experimental study,” The Journal of Psychology and Financial Markets3, pp. 168–181.
22.
ShogrenJ.F., ChoS., KooC., ListJ., ParkC., PoloP., and WilhelmiR. (2001). “Auction mechanisms and the measurement of WTP and WTA,” Resource and Energy Economics23, pp. 97–109
23.
ShogrenJ., and HayesD. (1997). “Resolving differences in willingness to pay and willingness to accept: Reply,” American Economic Review87, pp. 241–244.
24.
Thaler,R. (1980). “Toward a positive theory of consumer choice,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization1, pp. 39–60.
25.
Vickery,W. (1961). “Counterspeculation, auctions, and competitive sealed tenders,” Journal of Finance16, pp. 8–37.
26.
WeberM., KeppeH.J., and Meyer-DeliusG. (2000). “The impact of endowment framing on market prices - An experimental study,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization41, pp. 159–176.
