The Longshot Bias Is a Context Effect

References

• Abdellaoui M, Baillon A, Placido L, Wakker PP (2011) The rich domain of uncertainty: Source functions and their experimental implementation. Amer. Econom. Rev. 101(2):695–723.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Abinzano I, Muga L, Santamaria R (2016) Game, set and match: The favourite-long shot bias in tennis betting exchanges. Appl. Econom. Lett. 23(8):605–608.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Alempaki D, Canic E, Mullett TL, Skylark WJ, Starmer C, Stewart N, Tufano F (2019) Reexamining how utility and weighting functions get their shapes: A quasi-adversarial collaboration providing a new interpretation. Management Sci. 65(10):4841–4862.Link, Google Scholar
• Ali MM (1977) Probability and utility estimates for racetrack bettors. J. Political Econom. 85(4):803–815.Crossref, Google Scholar
• André Q, de Langhe B (2021a) No evidence of loss aversion disappearance and reversal in Walasek and Stewart (2015). J. Experiment. Psych.: General 150(12):2659–2665.Google Scholar
• André Q, de Langhe B (2021b) How (not) to test theory with data: Illustrations from Walasek, Mullett, and Stewart (2020). J. Experiment. Psych.: General 150(12):2671–2674.Google Scholar
• Baillon A, Bleichrodt H, Spinu V (2020) Searching for the reference point. Management Sci. 66(1):93–112.Link, Google Scholar
• Bar-Hillel M, Peer E, Acquisti A (2014) “Heads or tails?”—A reachability bias in binary choice. J. Experiment. Psych. Learn. Memory Cognition 40(6):1656–1663.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Beggs A, Graddy K (2009) Anchoring effects: Evidence from art auctions. Amer. Econom. Rev. 99(3):1027–1039.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bell DR, Lattin JM (2000) Looking for loss aversion in scanner panel data: The confounding effect of price response heterogeneity. Marketing Sci. 19(2):185–200.Link, Google Scholar
• Berg JE, Rietz TA (2019) Longshots, overconfidence and efficiency on the Iowa electronic market. Internat. J. Forecasting 35(1):271–287.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bhargava S, Fisman R (2014) Contrast effects in sequential decisions: Evidence from speed dating. Rev. Econom. Statist. 96(3):444–457.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Birnbaum MH (1992) Violations of monotonicity and contextual effects in choice-based certainty equivalents. Psych. Sci. 3(5):310–315.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bordalo P, Gennaioli N, Shleifer A (2012) Salience theory of choice under risk. Quart. J. Econom. 127(3):1243–1285.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bordalo P, Gennaioli N, Shleifer A (2020) Memory, attention, and choice. Quart. J. Econom. 135(3):1399–1442.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boyce CJ, Brown GD, Moore SC (2010) Money and happiness: Rank of income, not income, affects life satisfaction. Psych. Sci. 21(4):471–475.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Camerer CF (1988) Prospect theory in the wild: Evidence from the field. Advances in Behavioral Economics, 148.Google Scholar
• Chiappori PA, Salanié B, Salanié F, Gandhi A (2019) From aggregate betting data to individual risk preferences. Econometrica 87(1):1–36.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cowgill B, Wolfers J, Zitzewitz E (2009) Using prediction markets to track information flows: Evidence from Google. Das S, Ostrovsky M, Pennock D, Szymanksi B, eds. Auctions, Market Mechanisms and Their Applications. AMMA 2009. Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering, vol. 14 (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg).Google Scholar
• Diamond AL (1953) Foveal simultaneous brightness contrast as a function of inducing, and test-field luminances. J. Experiment. Psych. 45(5):304–314.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Frederick S, Lee L, Baskin E (2014) The limits of attraction. J. Marketing Res. 51(4):487–507.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Frederick SW, Mochon D (2012) A scale distortion theory of anchoring. J. Experiment. Psych. General 141(1):124–133.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gandhi A, Serrano-Padial R (2015) Does belief heterogeneity explain asset prices: The case of the longshot bias. Rev. Econom. Stud. 82(1):156–186.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Green E, Lee H, Rothschild DM (2020) The favorite-longshot Midas. Jacobs Levy Equity Management Center for Quantitative Financial Research Paper, Social Science Research Network. Preprint submitted August 12, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3271248.Google Scholar
• Griffith RM (1949) Odds adjustments by American horse-race bettors. Amer. J. Psych. 62(2):290–294.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gonzalez R, Wu G (1999) On the shape of the probability weighting function. Cognitive Psych. 38(1):129–166.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hartzmark SM, Shue K (2018) A tough act to follow: Contrast effects in financial markets. J. Finance 73(4):1567–1613.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Helson H (1948) Adaptation-level as a basis for a quantitative theory of frames of reference. Psych. Rev. 55(6):297–313.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hertwig R, Erev I (2009) The description–experience gap in risky choice. Trends Cognitive Sci. 13(12):517–523.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hertwig R, Barron G, Weber EU, Erev I (2004) Decisions from experience and the effect of rare events in risky choice. Psych. Sci. 15(8):534–539.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hsee CK (1996) The evaluability hypothesis: An explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 67(3):247–257.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huber J, Payne JW, Puto C (1982) Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: Violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. J. Consumer Res. 9(1):90–98.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Janiszewski C, Lichtenstein DR (1999) A range theory account of price perception. J. Consumer Res. 25(4):353–368.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jullien B, Salanié B (2000) Estimating preferences under risk: The case of racetrack bettors. J. Political Econom. 108(3):503–530.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Frederick S (2002) Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D, eds. Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment (Cambridge University Press, New York), 49–81.Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–292.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kamenica E (2008) Contextual inference in markets: On the informational content of product lines. Amer. Econom. Rev. 98(5):2127–2149.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kopriva F (2015) Constant bet size? Don’t bet on it! Testing expected utility theory on betfair data. CERGE-EI Working Paper Series No. 545., Social Science Research Network.Google Scholar
• Kőszegi B, Rabin M (2006) A model of reference-dependent preferences. Quart. J. Econom. 121(4):1133–1165.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kőszegi B, Rabin M (2007) Reference-dependent risk attitudes. Amer. Econom. Rev. 97(4):1047–1073.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levitt SD (2004) Why are gambling markets organised so differently from financial markets? Econom. J. (London) 114(495):223–246.Google Scholar
• Lintner J (1965) Security prices, risk, and maximal gains from diversification. J. Finance 20(4):587–615.Google Scholar
• Luce RD (1959) Individual Choice Behavior (John Wiley, New York).Google Scholar
• Markman AB, Medin DL (1995) Similarity and alignment in choice. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 63(2):117–130.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Massaro DW, Anderson NH (1971) Judgmental model of the Ebbinghaus illusion. J. Experiment. Psych. 89(1):147–151.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McGlothlin WH (1956) Stability of choices among uncertain alternatives. Amer. J. Psych. 69(4):604–615.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Muth JF (1961) Rational expectations and the theory of price movements. Econometrica 29(3):315–335.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Niedrich RW, Sharma S, Wedell DH (2001) Reference price and price perceptions: A comparison of alternative models. J. Consumer Res. 28(3):339–354.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Parducci A (1965) Category judgment: A range-frequency model. Psych. Rev. 72(6):407–418.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Parducci A (1968) The relativism of absolute judgments. Sci. Amer. 219(6):84–93.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Prelec D (1998) The probability weighting function. Econometrica 66(3):497–527.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Preston MG, Baratta P (1948) An experimental study of the auction-value of an uncertain outcome. Amer. J. Psych. 61(2):183–193.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Quandt RE (1986) Betting and equilibrium. Quart. J. Econom. 101(1):201–207.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schmidt U, Starmer C, Sugden R (2008) Third-generation prospect theory. J. Risk Uncertainty 36(3):203–223.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simonsohn U (2006) New Yorkers commute more everywhere: Contrast effects in the field. Rev. Econom. Statist. 88(1):1–9.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simonsohn U, Loewenstein G (2006) Mistake #37: The effect of previously encountered prices on current housing demand. Econom. J. (London) 116(508):175–199.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simonson I, Tversky A (1992) Choice in context: Tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. J. Marketing Res. 29(3):281–295.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sharpe WF (1964) Capital asset prices: A theory of market equilibrium under conditions of risk. J. Finance 19(3):425–442.Google Scholar
• Sher S, McKenzie CR (2014) Options as information: Rational reversals of evaluation and preference. J. Experiment. Psych. General 143(3):1127–1143.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sherman SJ, Ahlm K, Berman L, Lynn S (1978) Contrast effects and their relationship to subsequent behavior. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 14(4):340–350.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Snowberg E, Wolfers J (2010) Explaining the favorite–long shot bias: Is it risk-love or misperceptions? J. Political Econom. 118(4):723–746.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stewart N (2009) Decision by sampling: The role of the decision environment in risky choice. Quart. J. Experiment. Psych. 62(6):1041–1062.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stewart N, Chater N, Brown GD (2006) Decision by sampling. Cognitive Psych. 53(1):1–26.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stewart N, Reimers S, Harris AJ (2015) On the origin of utility, weighting, and discounting functions: How they get their shapes and how to change their shapes. Management Sci. 61(3):687–705.Link, Google Scholar
• Tetlock P (2004) How efficient are information markets? Evidence from an online exchange. Working paper, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Thaler RH, Ziemba WT (1988) Anomalies: Parimutuel betting markets: Racetracks and lotteries. J. Econom. Perspect. 2(2):161–174.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D (1991) Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. Quart. J. Econom. 106(4):1039–1061.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D (1992) Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertainty 5(4):297–323.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ungemach C, Stewart N, Reimers S (2011) How incidental values from the environment affect decisions about money, risk, and delay. Psych. Sci. 22(2):253–260.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vuong QH (1989) Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-nested hypotheses. Econometrica 57(2):307–333.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Walasek L, Stewart N (2015) How to make loss aversion disappear and reverse: Tests of the decision by sampling origin of loss aversion. J. Experiment. Psych. General 144(1):7–11.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Walasek L, Mullett TL, Stewart N (2021) Acceptance of mixed gambles is sensitive to the range of gains and losses experienced, and estimates of lambda (λ) are not a reliable measure of loss aversion: Reply to André and de Langhe. J. Experiment. Psych.: General 150(12):2666–2670.Google Scholar
• Weitzman M (1965) Utility analysis and group behavior: An empirical study. J. Political Econom. 73(1):18–26.Google Scholar
• Wernerfelt B (1995) A rational reconstruction of the compromise effect: Using market data to infer utilities. J. Consumer Res. 21(4):627–633.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Winer RS (1986) A reference price model of brand choice for frequently purchased products. J. Consumer Res. 13(2):250–256.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wolfers J, Zitzewitz E (2006) Interpreting Prediction Market Prices as Probabilities (No. w12200) (National Bureau of Economic Research).Crossref, Google Scholar