@techreport{CaliendoCobbClarkObstetal.2020,
  type      = {Working Paper},
  author    = {Caliendo, Marco and Cobb-Clark, Deborah A. and Obst, Cosima and Uhlendorff, Arne},
  title     = {Risk Preferences and Training Investments},
  series = {CEPA Discussion Papers},
  journal   = {CEPA Discussion Papers},
  number    = {23},
  issn      = {2628-653X},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-48092},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-480927},
  pages     = {35},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {We analyze workers' risk preferences and training investments. Our conceptual framework differentiates between the investment risk and insurance mechanisms underpinning training decisions. Investment risk leads risk-averse workers to train less; they undertake more training if it insures them against future losses. We use the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) to demonstrate that risk affinity is associated with more training, implying that, on average, investment risks dominate the insurance benefits of training. Crucially, this relationship is evident only for general training; there is no relationship between risk attitudes and specific training. Thus, as expected, risk preferences matter more when skills are transferable - and workers have a vested interest in training outcomes - than when they are not. Finally, we provide evidence that the insurance benefits of training are concentrated among workers with uncertain employment relationships or limited access to public insurance schemes.},
  language  = {en}
}
@techreport{SpaethGoller2023,
  type      = {Working Paper},
  author    = {Sp{\"a}th, Maximilian and Goller, Daniel},
  title     = {Gender differences in investment reactions to irrelevant information},
  series = {CEPA Discussion Papers},
  journal   = {CEPA Discussion Papers},
  number    = {67},
  issn      = {2628-653X},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-60635},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-606351},
  pages     = {25, 4},
  year      = {2023},
  abstract  = {Economic agents often irrationally base their decision-making on irrelevant information. This research analyzes whether men and women react to futile information about past outcomes. For this purpose, we run a laboratory experiment (Study 1) and use field data (Study 2). In both studies, the behavior of men is consistent with falsely assumed negative autocorrelation, often referred to as gambler's fallacy Women's behavior aligns with falsely assumed positive autocorrelation, a notion of the hot hand fallacy. On the aggregate, the two fallacies cancel out. Even when individuals are, on average, rational, the biases in the decision-making of subgroups might cause inefficient outcomes. In a mediation analysis, we find that a) the agents stated perceived probabilities of future outcomes are not blurred by irrelevant information and b) about 40 \% of the observed biases are driven by differences in the perceived attractiveness of available choices caused by the irrelevant information.},
  language  = {en}
}
@techreport{BruttelBulutayCornandetal.2022,
  type      = {Working Paper},
  author    = {Bruttel, Lisa Verena and Bulutay, Muhammed and Cornand, Camille and Heinemann, Frank and Zylbersztejn, Adam},
  title     = {Measuring strategic-uncertainty attitudes},
  series = {CEPA Discussion Papers},
  journal   = {CEPA Discussion Papers},
  number    = {54},
  issn      = {2628-653X},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-56234},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-562340},
  pages     = {40},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Strategic uncertainty is the uncertainty that players face with respect to the purposeful behavior of other players in an interactive decision situation. Our paper develops a new method for measuring strategic-uncertainty attitudes and distinguishing them from risk and ambiguity attitudes. We vary the source of uncertainty (whether strategic or not) across conditions in a ceteris paribus manner. We elicit certainty equivalents of participating in two strategic 2x2 games (a stag-hunt and a market-entry game) as well as certainty equivalents of related lotteries that yield the same possible payoffs with exogenously given probabilities (risk) and lotteries with unknown probabilities (ambiguity). We provide a structural model of uncertainty attitudes that allows us to measure a preference for or an aversion against the source of uncertainty, as well as optimism or pessimism regarding the desired outcome. We document systematic attitudes towards strategic uncertainty that vary across contexts. Under strategic complementarity [substitutability], the majority of participants tend to be pessimistic [optimistic] regarding the desired outcome. However, preferences for the source of uncertainty are distributed around zero.},
  language  = {en}
}
@techreport{Bruttel2019,
  type      = {Working Paper},
  author    = {Bruttel, Lisa Verena},
  title     = {Is There a Loyalty-Enhancing Effect of Retroactive Price-Reduction Schemes?},
  series = {CEPA Discussion Papers},
  journal   = {CEPA Discussion Papers},
  number    = {5},
  issn      = {2628-653X},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-42768},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-427688},
  pages     = {25},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {This paper presents an experiment on the effect of retroactive price-reduction schemes on buyers' repeated purchase decisions. Such schemes promise buyers a reduced price for all units that are bought in a certain time frame if the total quantity that is purchased passes a given threshold. This study finds a loyalty-enhancing effect of retroactive price-reduction schemes only if the buyers ex-ante expected that entering into the scheme would maximize their monetary gain, but later learn that they should leave the scheme. Furthermore, the effect crucially hinges on the framing of the price reduction.},
  language  = {en}
}