• Graduate Programs
  • Research
  • Browse our Courses
  • Events
    • Events Calendar
    • Events Archive
    • Summer School
      • Applied Public Policy Evaluation
      • Deep Learning
      • Development Economics
      • Economics of Blockchain and Digital Currencies
      • Economics of Climate Change
      • The Economics of Crime
      • Foundations of Machine Learning with Applications in Python
      • From Preference to Choice: The Economic Theory of Decision-Making
      • Inequalities in Health and Healthcare
      • Marketing Research with Purpose
      • Markets with Frictions
      • Modern Toolbox for Spatial and Functional Data
      • Sustainable Finance
      • Tuition Fees and Payment
      • Business Data Science Summer School Program
    • Tinbergen Institute Lectures
    • 2026 Tinbergen Institute Opening Conference
    • Annual Tinbergen Institute Conference
  • News
  • Summer School
    • Applied Public Policy Evaluation
    • Deep Learning
    • Development Economics
    • Economics of Blockchain and Digital Currencies
    • Economics of Climate Change
    • The Economics of Crime
    • Foundations of Machine Learning with Applications in Python
    • From Preference to Choice: The Economic Theory of Decision-Making
    • Inequalities in Health and Healthcare
    • Marketing Research with Purpose
    • Markets with Frictions
    • Modern Toolbox for Spatial and Functional Data
    • Sustainable Finance
    • Tuition Fees and Payment
  • Alumni

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.