Allowing repeat winners

Marco D. Huesch, Richard Brady

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Unbiased lotteries seem the least unfair and simplest procedures to allocate scarce indivisible resources to those with equal claims. But, when lotteries are repeated, it is not immediately obvious whether prior winners should be included or excluded. As in design questions surrounding single-shot lotteries, considerations of self-interest and distributive social preferences may interact. We investigate preferences for allowing participation of earlier winners in sequential lotteries. We found a strong preference for exclusion, both in settings where subjects were involved, and those where they were not. Subjects who answered questions about both settings did not differ in their tendency to prefer exclusion. Stated rationales significantly predicted choice but did not predict switching of choices between the two settings.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)374-379
Number of pages6
JournalJudgment and Decision Making
Volume5
Issue number5
StatePublished - Aug 2010

Fingerprint

Lottery
Exclusion
Resources
Participation
Rationale
Social preferences

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Decision Sciences(all)
  • Economics and Econometrics
  • Applied Psychology

Cite this

Huesch, M. D., & Brady, R. (2010). Allowing repeat winners. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(5), 374-379.
Huesch, Marco D. ; Brady, Richard. / Allowing repeat winners. In: Judgment and Decision Making. 2010 ; Vol. 5, No. 5. pp. 374-379.
@article{43067c3858964a8ab4b7db002036b77c,
title = "Allowing repeat winners",
abstract = "Unbiased lotteries seem the least unfair and simplest procedures to allocate scarce indivisible resources to those with equal claims. But, when lotteries are repeated, it is not immediately obvious whether prior winners should be included or excluded. As in design questions surrounding single-shot lotteries, considerations of self-interest and distributive social preferences may interact. We investigate preferences for allowing participation of earlier winners in sequential lotteries. We found a strong preference for exclusion, both in settings where subjects were involved, and those where they were not. Subjects who answered questions about both settings did not differ in their tendency to prefer exclusion. Stated rationales significantly predicted choice but did not predict switching of choices between the two settings.",
author = "Huesch, {Marco D.} and Richard Brady",
year = "2010",
month = "8",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "5",
pages = "374--379",
journal = "Judgment and Decision Making",
issn = "1930-2975",
publisher = "Society for Judgment and Decision Making",
number = "5",

}

Huesch, MD & Brady, R 2010, 'Allowing repeat winners', Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 374-379.

Allowing repeat winners. / Huesch, Marco D.; Brady, Richard.

In: Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 5, No. 5, 08.2010, p. 374-379.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Allowing repeat winners

AU - Huesch, Marco D.

AU - Brady, Richard

PY - 2010/8

Y1 - 2010/8

N2 - Unbiased lotteries seem the least unfair and simplest procedures to allocate scarce indivisible resources to those with equal claims. But, when lotteries are repeated, it is not immediately obvious whether prior winners should be included or excluded. As in design questions surrounding single-shot lotteries, considerations of self-interest and distributive social preferences may interact. We investigate preferences for allowing participation of earlier winners in sequential lotteries. We found a strong preference for exclusion, both in settings where subjects were involved, and those where they were not. Subjects who answered questions about both settings did not differ in their tendency to prefer exclusion. Stated rationales significantly predicted choice but did not predict switching of choices between the two settings.

AB - Unbiased lotteries seem the least unfair and simplest procedures to allocate scarce indivisible resources to those with equal claims. But, when lotteries are repeated, it is not immediately obvious whether prior winners should be included or excluded. As in design questions surrounding single-shot lotteries, considerations of self-interest and distributive social preferences may interact. We investigate preferences for allowing participation of earlier winners in sequential lotteries. We found a strong preference for exclusion, both in settings where subjects were involved, and those where they were not. Subjects who answered questions about both settings did not differ in their tendency to prefer exclusion. Stated rationales significantly predicted choice but did not predict switching of choices between the two settings.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77956990052&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77956990052&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:77956990052

VL - 5

SP - 374

EP - 379

JO - Judgment and Decision Making

JF - Judgment and Decision Making

SN - 1930-2975

IS - 5

ER -

Huesch MD, Brady R. Allowing repeat winners. Judgment and Decision Making. 2010 Aug;5(5):374-379.