| Field | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Field Trial Status | Before in_development | After completed |
| Field Last Published | Before November 13, 2018 01:08 AM | After April 08, 2019 12:05 AM |
| Field Study Withdrawn | Before | After No |
| Field Intervention Completion Date | Before | After December 13, 2018 |
| Field Data Collection Complete | Before | After Yes |
| Field Final Sample Size: Number of Clusters (Unit of Randomization) | Before | After 113 individuals |
| Field Was attrition correlated with treatment status? | Before | After No |
| Field Final Sample Size: Total Number of Observations | Before | After 678 paired choices |
| Field Final Sample Size (or Number of Clusters) by Treatment Arms | Before | After 339 paired choices for symmetric Mao pairs, 339 paired choices for skewed Mao pairs |
| Field Is there a restricted access data set available on request? | Before | After No |
| Field Program Files | Before | After No |
| Field Data Collection Completion Date | Before | After December 13, 2018 |
| Field Is data available for public use? | Before | After No |
| Field | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Field Paper Abstract | Before | After Whether people seek or avoid risks on gambling, insurance, asset, or labor markets crucially depends on the skewness of the underlying probability distribution. In fact, people typically seek positively skewed risks and avoid negatively skewed risks. We show that salience theory of choice under risk can explain this preference for positive skewness, because unlikely, but outstanding payoffs attract attention. In contrast to alternative models, however, salience theory predicts that choices under risk not only depend on the absolute skewness of the available options, but also on how skewed these options appear to be relative to each other. We exploit this fact to derive novel, experimentally testable predictions that are unique to the salience model and that we find support for in two laboratory experiments. We thereby argue that skewness preferences—typically attributed to cumulative prospect theory—are more naturally accommodated by salience theory. |
| Field Paper Citation | Before | After Dertwinkel-Kalt, Markus and Köster, Mats (2019). "Salience and Skewness Preferences," DICE Discussion Paper No. 310. |
| Field Paper URL | Before | After http://www.dice.hhu.de/fileadmin/redaktion/Fakultaeten/Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche_Fakultaet/DICE/Discussion_Paper/310_Dertwinkel-Kalt_Koester.pdf |