Abstract Background and purpose: Mainstream economic models do not take ownership into consideration. Only after the findings of behavioural economists was endowment effect widely observed. Endowment effect means that goods that one owns are valued higher than other goods not held in endowment. At the same time the principal-agent literature is concerned with how the principal (such as employer) can motivate his agent (say the employee), to act in the principal’s interests and also for their holdings. The main problem is that acting in somebody’s else’s interests can influence our values as well. Moreover, the principal as owner suffers from endowment effect. Both situations can be treated as a risky decision. Risk confuses our rationality in a predictable way. Design/Methodology/Approach: Due to this it was observed how foreign students from various cultural backgrounds decided (n=186 answers) in a risky financial situation by focusing on Allais’ classic gambles. I also presented their preferences over certain and uncertain outcomes regarding the owner of the final win; i.e. how they choose for themselves or on behalf of one of their best friends. One famous experiment - which tested the descriptive validity of the axioms’ expected utility theory - was Allais. Allais handled probabilities and outcomes in high hypothetical payoff financial gamble situations; he found that when offering two similar options, the common consequences will not be removed by the actors. I was interested in what happens when the actors take risks on behalf of others. It was used between-subjects technique on an extended multicultural sample. Regarding the two different topics, three hypotheses were tested (1); based on Allais paradox (2); observed ownerships (3); the comparison of two phenomena. Results: The results show that the subjects responded differently when they needed to decide about their own properties rather when their friends’ properties were concerned. When a sure safe outcome was offered to the subjects, they took more risk on behalf of their friends rather than own. Moreover, the subjects do not take into consideration that the same attributes must be ignored, so Allais paradox was verified. Conclusion: The goal of this paper is then twofold. First, it was established a conceptual link between Allais-type behaviour and ownership problem. Second, Allais axiom was used to characterize different roles. Knowing predictable patterns of seemingly irrational heuristics in human behaviour can improve economic theory. At the same time, this knowledge helps us to avoid irrational decisions.

中文翻译：

---

冷漠，善良的撒玛利亚人，勇敢者和特工在阿莱斯悖论的情况下–或End赋效应如何影响我们在阿莱斯悖论的情况下的决定？

摘要背景和目的：主流经济模型没有考虑所有权。只有在行为经济学家的发现之后，才广泛观察到end赋效应。effect赋效应是指一个人拥有的商品的价值高于未在in赋中持有的其他商品。同时，委托代理人文献关注委托人（例如雇主）如何激励其代理人（例如雇员），为委托人的利益和所持财产行事。主要问题是，为了他人的利益行事也会影响我们的价值观。此外，作为所有者的委托人遭受end赋效应。两种情况都可以视为冒险决定。风险以可预测的方式混淆了我们的理性。设计/方法/方法：因此，我们观察到来自不同文化背景的外国学生如何专注于Allais的经典赌博，从而决定（n = 186个答案）处于危险的财务状况中。我还介绍了他们对最终获胜者的某些不确定结果的偏好；也就是说，他们如何选择自己或代表自己最好的朋友之一。阿莱（Allais）是一个著名的实验，它检验了公理的预期效用理论的描述性有效性。阿莱（Allais）在假定的高回报财务赌博情况下处理了概率和结果；他发现，提供两种类似的选择时，行为者不会消除共同的后果。我对当演员代表他人冒险时会发生什么感兴趣。在扩展的多元文化样本中使用了主题间技术。关于两个不同的主题，检验了三个假设（1）；基于阿莱克斯悖论（2）; 观察到的所有权（3）；两种现象的比较。结果：结果表明，当受试者需要决定自己的属性时，而不是在关注朋友的属性时，他们的反应有所不同。当给受试者确定的安全结果时，他们代表朋友而不是自己承担更大的风险。此外，受试者没有考虑必须忽略相同的属性，因此对阿莱思悖论进行了验证。结论：那么，本文的目标是双重的。首先，它建立了Allais型行为和所有权问题之间的概念联系。其次，Allais公理被用来表征不同的角色。了解人类行为中看似非理性的启发式行为的可预测模式可以改善经济学理论。同时，这些知识有助于我们避免做出不合理的决定。