S. Palan, GIMS-Software for asset market experiments. J. Behav. Exp. Finance 5, 1–14, (2015). Medline doi:10.1016/j.jbef.2015.02.001 (可免費閱讀)
GIMS 是架在 z-Tree 上，專門用來跑財務資產市場 (又稱 double auction asset market) 的實驗平台軟體，採開放源碼 (open source) 授權。
此文亦介紹、比較了其它相關的財務市場實驗平台軟體，參見文中的 Table 1。
- EconPort MarketLink(based on Java and experiments can be run over the internet)
- Flex-E-Markets(not open source)
- GIMS(based on z-Tree)
- jMarkets (open-source software based on Java)
- Rotman Interactive Trader (非免費)
- SoPHIE Labs (非免費)
==notes by yinung==
reverse confirmation bias:
* 決策者對於來自於其他人的且和自己所獲看法相同之私有訊息, 所放的權重較少; 反之, 對和自己所獲看法「衝突」之私有訊息, 所放的權重較多。
they place less weight on information from others that agrees with their private signal and more weight on conflicting information.
* 在 group 分享訊息但不溝通的決策情境中, 此現象會減少…
We report a controlled laboratory experiment examining risk-taking and information aggregation in groups facing a common risk. The experiment allows us to examine how subjects respond to new information, in the form of both privately observed signals and signals reported from others. We find that a considerable number of subjects exhibit ‘reverse confirmation bias’: they place less weight on information from others that agrees with their private signal and more weight on conflicting information. We also find a striking degree of consensus when subjects make decisions on behalf of the group under a random dictatorship procedure. Reverse confirmation bias and the incidence of consensus are considerably reduced when group members can share signals but not communicate.
||Group behaviour; teams; decision making; risk; experiment
||C91 C92 D71 D80
Charles Bellemare, Michaela Krausee, Sabine Krfgerf,Chendi Zhang (2005) “Myopic loss aversion: Information feedback vs. investment flexibility“. Economics Letters, vol., 87, pp.319 – 324. *****
==notes by yinung==
在於資訊迴饋頻率 frequent/infrequent, 其 treatment 有三種:
H: 投資期間1期, 資訊迴饋頻率每1期
M: 投資期間3期, 資訊迴饋頻率每1期
L: 投資期間3期, 資訊迴饋頻率每3期
Bellemare et al. (2005) 實驗結果是: 投資額度 L~M>H
- We confirm the works by Gneezy and Potters (1997) and others building on it, and furthermore find that experimentally induced myopia in combination with loss aversion remained to affect investment behavior systematically even when flexibility in adjusting investment was no longer varied. MLA is driven by information feedback.
We experimentally disentangle the effect of information feedback from the effect of investment flexibility on the investment behavior of a myopically loss averse investor. Our findings show that varying the information condition alone suffices to induce behavior that is in line with the hypothesis of Myopic Loss Aversion.
==notes by yinung==
這篇有讓 subject 內生決定 H1 或 H3
H1/3: investment 1/3 period
F1: Feedback, 1 period
No-profit: 沒有給 profit 資訊
Profit:有給「告訴 subject, 選 3期, 其平均 profit 較高 」資訊
內生決定 feedback: F1/3, 但每期都可投資
第1期被指定 H1/3; 第3期開始可以自訂(每3期一次), 轉換成本 40ECU (約報酬的 2.6%)
We use an experiment to examine the causes, consequences and possible cures of myopic loss aversion (MLA) for investment behaviour under risk. We find that both investment horizons and feedback frequency contribute almost equally to the effects of MLA. Longer investment horizons and less frequent feedback lead to higher investments. However, when given the choice, subjects prefer on average shorter investment horizons and more frequent feedback. Exploiting the status quo bias by setting a long investment horizon or low feedback frequency as a default turns out to be a successful behavioural intervention to increase investment levels.
Confusion and Learning in the Voluntary Contributions Game
By: Spiros Bougheas (School of Economics, University of Nottingham)
Jeroen Nieboer (School of Economics, University of Nottingham)
Martin Sefton (School of Economics, University of Nottingham)
We investigate experimentally the effect of consultation (unincentivized advice) on choices under risk in an incentivized investment task. We compare these choices to two benchmark treatments: one with isolated individual choices, and a second with group choice after communication. Our benchmarking treatments replicate earlier findings that groups take more risk than individuals in the investment task . In our consultation treatments we find evidence of peer effects: there is significant correlation of decisions within the peer group. However, average risk taking is not significantly different from the benchmark treatment with isolated individual choices. This latter result underlines the importance of payoff-commonality for bringing about higher risk-taking in groups.
Keywords: experimental economics, choice under risk, advice, social influence, peer effects
==notes by yinung=
此篇和已發表在 Experimental Economics 題目竟然完全相同
Bayer, Ralph-C., Elke Renner, and Rupert Sausgruber. “Confusion and learning in the voluntary contributions game." Experimental Economics
(2013): 1-19. [link to EE
We use a limited information environment to assess the role of confusion in the repeated voluntary contributions game. A comparison with play in a standard version of the game suggests, that the common claim that decision errors due to confused subjects biases estimates of cooperation upwards, is not necessarily correct. Furthermore, we find that simple learning cannot generate the kind of contribution dynamics commonly attributed to the existence of conditional cooperators. We conclude that cooperative behavior and its decay observed in public goods games is not a pure artefact of confusion and learning.