| Abstract: |
We study risky choice in a field setting where employees choose among
goal-reward contracts resembling financial lotteries and where we observe both
choices and beliefs. We find risk aversion and choice heterogeneity far
exceeding expected utility predictions and unexplained by prominent behavioral
motives like overconfidence, nonlinear decision weights, and loss aversion. We
propose and experimentally validate a heuristic explanation for risk taking
involving contingency neglect during pairwise evaluation. The heuristic fits
the field and lab data better than leading alternative models, uniquely
predicts the belief distortions and framing effects we document, and offers a
potential explanation for empirical insurance puzzles. |