Books and journals Case studies Expert Briefings Open Access
Advanced search

Does Risk Aversion Vary with Decision‐Frame? An Empirical Test Using Recent Game Show Data

Daniel Mulino (Department of Economics, Monash University, Australia)
Richard Scheelings (Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), Australia)
Robert Brooks (Department of Econometrics and Business Statistics, Monash University, Australia)
Robert Faff (Department of Accounting and Finance, Monash University, Australia)

Review of Behavioral Finance

ISSN: 1940-5979

Publication date: 21 September 2009

Abstract

An aspect of prospect theory posits that decision‐makers, when making decisions in the face of risk, make their decisions with respect to a pre‐existing reference point or ‘frame’ (the statusquo bias). We utilize data from the Australian version of the TV game show, Deal or No Deal, to explore whether risk aversion varies with a change in reference point in a context where stakes are real and high.We achieve this by exploiting a special and unique Australian feature of the Deal or No Deal lottery‐choice setting, namely, the existence of the Chance or the SuperCase rounds (supplementary rounds). These rounds reverse the decision‐frame that was obtained in earlier (normal) rounds. We fit and estimate a complete dynamic decision‐making model to our dataset and find that the risk aversion estimate of contestants who participated in both the normal and the supplementary rounds indeed differs depending on the nature of the round, a result consistent with the operation of the existence of a framing effect.

Keywords

  • Risk aversion
  • Decision‐frame
  • Deal or no deal

Citation

Mulino, D., Scheelings, R., Brooks, R. and Faff, R. (2009), "Does Risk Aversion Vary with Decision‐Frame? An Empirical Test Using Recent Game Show Data", Review of Behavioral Finance, Vol. 1 No. 1/2, pp. 44-61. https://doi.org/10.1108/19405979200900003

Download as .RIS

Publisher

:

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2009, Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes

You may be able to access teaching notes by logging in via Shibboleth, Open Athens or with your Emerald account.
Login
If you think you should have access to this content, click the button to contact our support team.
Contact us

To read the full version of this content please select one of the options below

You may be able to access this content by logging in via Shibboleth, Open Athens or with your Emerald account.
Login
To rent this content from Deepdyve, please click the button.
Rent from Deepdyve
If you think you should have access to this content, click the button to contact our support team.
Contact us
Emerald Publishing
  • Opens in new window
  • Opens in new window
  • Opens in new window
  • Opens in new window
© 2021 Emerald Publishing Limited

Services

  • Authors Opens in new window
  • Editors Opens in new window
  • Librarians Opens in new window
  • Researchers Opens in new window
  • Reviewers Opens in new window

About

  • About Emerald Opens in new window
  • Working for Emerald Opens in new window
  • Contact us Opens in new window
  • Publication sitemap

Policies and information

  • Privacy notice
  • Site policies
  • Modern Slavery Act Opens in new window
  • Chair of Trustees governance statement Opens in new window
  • COVID-19 policy Opens in new window
Manage cookies

We’re listening — tell us what you think

  • Something didn’t work…

    Report bugs here

  • All feedback is valuable

    Please share your general feedback

  • Member of Emerald Engage?

    You can join in the discussion by joining the community or logging in here.
    You can also find out more about Emerald Engage.

Join us on our journey

  • Platform update page

    Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

  • Questions & More Information

    Answers to the most commonly asked questions here