IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolet/v170y2018icp85-87.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk preferences over simple and compound public lotteries

Author

Listed:
  • Scrogin, David

Abstract

Lottery choice experiments with monetary payoffs have a long tradition for eliciting risk preferences. This note demonstrates how risk preferences over multi-attribute public lotteries may be estimated. Consistent with experimental findings, results from simple and compound lottery choice models indicate significant differences in the degree of risk aversion between male and female applicants.

Suggested Citation

  • Scrogin, David, 2018. "Risk preferences over simple and compound public lotteries," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 85-87.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:170:y:2018:i:c:p:85-87
    DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2018.05.012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016517651830185X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.econlet.2018.05.012?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Steffen Andersen & John Fountain & Glenn Harrison & E. Rutström, 2014. "Estimating subjective probabilities," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 207-229, June.
    2. Yoder, Jonathan K. & Ohler, Adrienne M. & Chouinard, Hayley H., 2014. "What floats your boat? Preference revelation from lotteries over complex goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 412-430.
    3. Scrogin, David, 2005. "Lottery-rationed public access under alternative tariff arrangements: changes in quality, quantity, and expected utility," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 189-211, July.
    4. Harrison, Glenn W. & Martínez-Correa, Jimmy & Swarthout, J. Todd & Ulm, Eric R., 2017. "Scoring rules for subjective probability distributions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 430-448.
    5. Rachel Croson & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Gender Differences in Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 448-474, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. David Scrogin, 2023. "Estimating risk and time preferences over public lotteries: Findings from the field and stream," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 67(1), pages 73-106, August.
    2. Iñigo Iturbe-Ormaetxe & Giovanni Ponti & Josefa Tomás, 2016. "Myopic Loss Aversion under Ambiguity and Gender Effects," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-11, December.
    3. Gauriot, Romain & Heger, Stephanie A. & Slonim, Robert, 2020. "Altruism or diminishing marginal utility?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 24-48.
    4. Crosetto, Paolo & Filippin, Antonio & Katuščák, Peter & Smith, John, 2020. "Central tendency bias in belief elicitation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    5. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Rasocha, Vlastimil, 2021. "Experimental methods: Eliciting beliefs," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 234-256.
    6. Zahra Murad & Martin Sefton & Chris Starmer, 2016. "How do risk attitudes affect measured confidence?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 52(1), pages 21-46, February.
    7. Di Girolamo, Amalia & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten I. & Swarthout, J. Todd, 2015. "Subjective belief distributions and the characterization of economic literacy," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 1-12.
    8. Harrison, Glenn W. & Martínez-Correa, Jimmy & Swarthout, J. Todd & Ulm, Eric R., 2015. "Eliciting subjective probability distributions with binary lotteries," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 68-71.
    9. Ola Andersson & Håkan J. Holm & Jean-Robert Tyran & Erik Wengström, 2013. "Risk aversion relates to cognitive ability: Fact or Fiction?," Discussion Papers 13-10, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics.
    10. Karl Schlag & James Tremewan & Joël Weele, 2015. "A penny for your thoughts: a survey of methods for eliciting beliefs," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(3), pages 457-490, September.
    11. Glenn W. Harrison & Jia Min Ng, 2019. "Behavioral insurance and economic theory: A literature review," Risk Management and Insurance Review, American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 22(2), pages 133-182, July.
    12. Glenn W. Harrison, 2019. "The behavioral welfare economics of insurance," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 44(2), pages 137-175, September.
    13. Eryk Krysowski & James Tremewan, 2021. "Why Does Anonymity Make Us Misbehave: Different Norms Or Less Compliance?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 59(2), pages 776-789, April.
    14. Ingrid Burfurd & Tom Wilkening, 2022. "Cognitive heterogeneity and complex belief elicitation," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(2), pages 557-592, April.
    15. Amalia Di Girolamo & Glenn W. Harrison & Morten I. Lau & J. Todd Swarthout, 2013. "Characterizing Financial and Statistical Literacy," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2013-04, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    16. Jaspersen, Johannes G., 2013. "An incentive compatible scoring rule for ordinal judgments of expected utility maximizers," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 120(2), pages 245-248.
    17. Ertac, Seda & Gumren, Mert & Gurdal, Mehmet Y., 2020. "Demand for decision autonomy and the desire to avoid responsibility in risky environments: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    18. Owen, Ann L. & Temesvary, Judit, 2018. "The performance effects of gender diversity on bank boards," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 50-63.
    19. Becchetti, Leonardo & Degli Antoni, Giacomo & Ottone, Stefania & Solferino, Nazaria, 2013. "Allocation criteria under task performance: The gendered preference for protection," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 96-111.
    20. Bjorvatn, Kjetil & Falch, Ranveig & Hernæs, Ulrikke, 2016. "Gender, context and competition: Experimental evidence from rural and urban Uganda," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 31-37.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Risk preferences; Simple lotteries; Compound lotteries;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:170:y:2018:i:c:p:85-87. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolet .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.