The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Learning to Wait: A Laboratory Investigation
Abstract
Human subjects decide when to sink a fixed cost C to seize an irreversible investment opportunity whose value V is governed by Brownian motion. The optimal policy is to invest when V first crosses a threshold V* = (1 + w*)C, where the wait option premium w* depends on drift, volatility, and expiration hazard parameters. Subjects in the Low w* treatment on average invest at values quite close to optimum. Subjects in the two Medium and the High w* treatments invested at values below optimum, but with the predicted ordering, and values approached the optimum by the last block of 20 periods.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“For instance, Oprea et al. (2009) and Sandri et al. (2010) study circumstances under which individuals optimally (de)-invest in assets, the prices of which evolve according to binomial tree models.”
From Copy Trading (2020) · cites this paper as Oprea et al. (2009)
Citations
Cites
Dixit, R. K., & Pindyck, R. S. (1994) · doi:10.1515/9781400830176 · Cited by 9,029
Research works printed but not linked: 23
- BERGER, 1996, “Valuation of the Abandonment Option”, Journal of Financial Economics, 42, 257, 10.1016/0304-405X(96)00877-X · DOI
- BOX, 1978, Statistics for Experimenters: An Introduction to Design, Data Analysis, and Model Building
- BRAUNSTEIN, 1981, “Economic Search: An Experimental Study”, Economic Inquiry, 19, 1, 10.1111/j.1465-7295.1981.tb00600.x · DOI
- CARILLO, 2000, “Strategic Ignorance as a Self-Disciplining Device”, Review of Economic Studies, 67, 529, 10.1111/1467-937X.00142 · DOI
- CASON, 1999, “Learning in a Laboratory Market with Random Supply and Demand”, Experimental Economics, 2, 277, 10.1023/A:1009981800289 · DOI
- COPELAND, 2003, Real Options: A Practitioner's Guide
- COX, 2000, “Good News and Bad News: Search from Unknown Wage Offer Distributions”, Experimental Economics, 2, 197, 10.1023/A:1009910627375 · DOI
- FILIZ-OZBAY, 2007, “Auctions with Anticipated Regret: Theory and Experiment”, American Economic Review, 97, 1407, 10.1257/aer.97.4.1407 · DOI
- FRIEDMAN, 1993, Santa Fe Institute Proceedings, 3
- GONG, 2007, “Payment Dominance in Sequential Search”
- HENRY, 1974, “Investment Decisions under Uncertainty: The Irreversibility Effect”, American Economic Review, 64, 1006
- HIRSHLEIFER, 2005, Price Theory and Applications, 10.1017/CBO9780511813382 · DOI
- KAPLAN, 1958, “Nonparametric Estimation from Incomplete Observations”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 53, 457, 10.1080/01621459.1958.10501452 · DOI · Paper page
- KLUGER, 2004, “Are Judgement Errors Reflected in Market Prices and Allocations? Experimental Evidence Based on the Monty Hall Problem”, Journal of Finance, 59, 969, 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2004.00654.x · DOI
- KREPS, 1990, A Course in Microeconomic Theory, 10.1515/9780691215747 · DOI
- MACDONALD, 1986, “The Value of Waiting to Invest”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 101, 707, 10.2307/1884175 · DOI
- MOEL, 2002, “When are Real Options Exercised? An Empirical Study of Mine Closings”, Review of Financial Studies, 15, 35, 10.1093/rfs/15.1.35 · DOI
- OPREA, 2007, “Learning to Wait: A Laboratory Investigation”
- PADDOCK, 1988, “Option Valuation of Claims on Real Assets: The Case of Offshore Petroleum Leases”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 103, 479, 10.2307/1885541 · DOI
- QUIGG, 1993, “Empirical Testing of Real Option-Pricing Models”, The Journal of Finance, 48, 621, 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1993.tb04730.x · DOI
- ROBSON, 2002, “Evolution and Human Nature”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16, 89, 10.1257/0895330027274 · DOI
- SELTEN, 1998, “Experimental Sealed Bid First Price Auctions with Directly Observed Bid Functions”, Games and Human Behavior: Essays in Honor of Amnon Rapoport, 79
- SHIN, 2004, “Keeping Doors Open: The Effect of Unavailability on Incentives to Keep Options Viable”, Management Science, 50, 575, 10.1287/mnsc.1030.0148 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Apesteguia, J., Oechssler, J., & Weidenholzer, S. (2020) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2019.3508 · Cited by 54
Metadata
- Authors
- OPREA, R., FRIEDMAN, D., & ANDERSON, S. T.
- Affiliations
- University of California System (US)
- United States Geological Survey (US)
- Venue
- Review of Economic Studies
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2009-07
- Volume
- 76
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 1103-1124
- ISSN
- 0034-6527 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-937X
- OpenAlex
- W3124622064
- Cited by
- 65
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 6.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Review of Economic Studies (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Finance › Capital Investment and Risk Analysis
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
- Keywords
- irreversible investment, optimal investment timing, Brownian motion, fixed costs, behavioral decision making, learning over time
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
