• Graduate Programs
    • Tinbergen Institute Research Master in Economics
      • Why Tinbergen Institute?
      • Research Master
      • Admissions
      • Course Registration
      • Facilities
      • PhD Vacancies
      • Selected PhD Placements
    • Research Master Business Data Science
    • PhD Vacancies
  • Research
  • Browse our Courses
  • Events
    • Summer School
      • Applied Public Policy Evaluation
      • Deep Learning
      • Economics of Blockchain and Digital Currencies
      • Economics of Climate Change
      • Foundations of Machine Learning with Applications in Python
      • From Preference to Choice: The Economic Theory of Decision-Making
      • Gender in Society
      • Machine Learning for Business
      • Marketing Research with Purpose
      • Sustainable Finance
      • Tuition Fees and Payment
      • Business Data Science Summer School Program
    • Events Calendar
    • Events Archive
    • Tinbergen Institute Lectures
    • 16th Tinbergen Institute Annual Conference
    • Annual Tinbergen Institute Conference
  • News
  • Alumni
    • PhD Theses
    • Master Theses
    • Selected PhD Placements
    • Key alumni publications
    • Alumni Community

Diecidue, E., Levy, M. and van de Ven, J. (2015). No aspiration to win? An experimental test of the aspiration level model Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 51(3):245--266.


  • Journal
    Journal of Risk and Uncertainty

A growing body of literature studies the effects of aspiration levels on people{\textquoteright}s choices. Researchers often assume an aspiration level at zero, which helps to explain several empirical phenomena. In two experiments, we test this assumption. Our experimental design exploits the discontinuity in the utility function at the aspiration level. The lotteries vary in complexity in terms of the number of outcomes and the use of round or non-round probabilities. We do not find support for an aspiration level at zero, neither for simple lotteries nor for complex lotteries. Overall, our aggregate results are consistent with prospect theory, but can also be explained by a population with heterogeneous aspiration levels instead of a homogeneous aspiration level at zero.