Abstract:According to classical utility theory the valuation of any lottery should depend only on its outcomes and their respective probabilities, and should not be affected by the nature, complexity and structure of the chance mechanism. Previous research has documented systematic violations of this principle. For example, most subjects prefer lotteries in which the payoffs are contingent on the joint occurrence of multiple (high probability) events to simple lotteries, and lotteries in which the earlier stages offer higher probabilities than the later stages. We review the various violations of this principle and suggest a classification into two major types associated with misunderstanding of chance mechanisms and attitude towards the chance mechanism and process. In the present study 40 subjects were presented with 30 pairs of binary gambles. In any given pair the lotteries had identical outcomes and equal ‘reduced’ probabilities (and thus equal expected values). However, the chance mechanisms varied along a variety of factors such as the size of the sample space, the number of stages, temporal ordering, order of probabilities, their transparency and time constraints. Half the subjects saw lotteries involving gains and the other half considered only losses. After choosing one lottery in each pair, the subjects were asked to explain and justify their choices. The findings revealed systematic violations of the reducibility principle: subjects displayed a preference for lotteries with larger sample spaces, and for lotteries that allow quicker resolutions in the earlier stages. A clear distinction between some patterns of preferences in the gains and loss domains was revealed. In gambles involving gains subjects preferred to have the highest probability on the first stage (and the lowest probability on the last stage), but displayed the opposite preferences for losses. A content analysis of the subjects' stated reasons for their choices identified eight major categories. The most frequently invoked were hope, fun, simplicity, stress and time. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Lottery-Related Anomalies: the Role of Reference-Dependent Preferences

Myopic Loss Aversion or Equate-to-differentiate Heuristic? A Heuristic Decision Making Model for Both Single and Aggregated Plays.

Which proxy: Capturing lottery feature through aggregation

Price Nonsynchronicity, Idiosyncratic Risk, and Expected Stock Returns in China

Diversification in lottery-like features and portfolio pricing discount: Evidence from closed-end funds

Someone Like You: Lottery-like Preference and the Cross-section of Expected Returns in the Cryptocurrency Market

Priming and Stock Preferences: Evidence from IPO Lotteries

Time-varying Demand for Lottery: Speculation Ahead of Earnings Announcements

Lottery‐like Features and Mutual Fund Performance‐flow Sensitivity

Lottery factor and stock returns: Evidence from India

Lottery preference, short-sale constraint, and the salience effect: Evidence from China

Who Gambles in the Chinese Stock Market?——evidence from Individual Investor Trading Data Set

Gambling preferences and fund company ownership: Evidence from China

Forecasting stock market returns with a lottery index: Evidence from China

Why Do Mutual Funds Hold Lottery Stocks?

Representativeness Biases and Lucky Store Effects

The Cross-Sectional “gambler's Fallacy”: Set Representativeness in Lottery Number Choices

The Gambling Preference and Stock Price: Evidence from China's Stock Market

Attention and Underreaction-Related Anomalies

The same but different: an empirical investigation of the reducibility principle

The Effect of Gambling Preference on Stock Volatility: From the Evidence of Looser Price Limits Regulation