Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Experimental methods: Eliciting risk preferences

Contents:

Author Info

  • Charness, Gary
  • Gneezy, Uri
  • Imas, Alex

Abstract

Economists and psychologists have developed a variety of experimental methodologies to elicit and assess individual risk attitudes. Choosing which to utilize, however, is largely dependent on the question one wants to answer, as well as the characteristics of the sample population. The goal of this paper is to present a series of prevailing methods for eliciting risk preferences and outline the advantages and disadvantages of each. We do not attempt to give a comprehensive account of all the methods or nuances of measuring risk, but rather to outline some advantages and disadvantages of different methods.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016726811200282X
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Bibliographic Info

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization.

Volume (Year): 87 (2013)
Issue (Month): C ()
Pages: 43-51

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:87:y:2013:i:c:p:43-51

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jebo

Related research

Keywords: Risk preferences; Elicitation methods; Experimental methodology;

Find related papers by JEL classification:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Dreber, Anna & Rand, David G. & Wernerfelt, Nils & Garcia, Justin R. & Lum, J. Koji & Zeckhauser, Richard, 2010. "Dopamine and Risk Choices in Different Domains: Findings among Serious Tournament Bridge Players," Working Paper Series rwp10-034, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
  2. Dohmen, Thomas J & Falk, Armin & Huffman, David & Sunde, Uwe, 2008. "Are Risk Aversion and Impatience Related to Cognitive Ability?," CEPR Discussion Papers, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers 6852, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  3. Tomomi Tanaka & Colin F. Camerer & Quang Nguyen, 2010. "Risk and Time Preferences: Linking Experimental and Household Survey Data from Vietnam," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, American Economic Association, vol. 100(1), pages 557-71, March.
  4. Uri Gneezy & Kenneth Leonard & John List, 2009. "Gender differences in competition: Evidence from a matrilineal and a patriarchal society," Artefactual Field Experiments 00049, The Field Experiments Website.
  5. Gneezy, Uri & Potters, Jan, 1997. "An Experiment on Risk Taking and Evaluation Periods," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, MIT Press, vol. 112(2), pages 631-45, May.
  6. James Andreoni & Charles Sprenger, 2010. "Estimating Time Preferences from Convex Budgets," Levine's Working Paper Archive 814577000000000457, David K. Levine.
  7. Friedman, Dan & Sunder, Shyam, 2011. "Risky Curves: From Unobservable Utility to Observable Opportunity Sets," Santa Cruz Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt36q158jt, Department of Economics, UC Santa Cruz.
  8. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde & Jürgen Schupp & Gert G. Wagner, 2011. "Individual Risk Attitudes: Measurement, Determinants, And Behavioral Consequences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 522-550, 06.
  9. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri, 2012. "Strong Evidence for Gender Differences in Risk Taking," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 50-58.
  10. Jan-Erik Lönnqvist & Markku Verkasalo & Gari Walkowitz & Philipp C. Wichardt, 2011. "Measuring Individual Risk Attitudes in the Lab: Task or Ask?: An Empirical Comparison," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 370, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
  11. Charness, Gary & Viceisza, Angelino, 2012. "Comprehension and Risk Elicitation in the Field: Evidence from Rural Senegal," University of California at Santa Barbara, Economics Working Paper Series qt5512d150, Department of Economics, UC Santa Barbara.
  12. Glenn W. Harrison & Morten I. Lau & E. Elisabet Rutström, 2007. "Estimating Risk Attitudes in Denmark: A Field Experiment," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 109(2), pages 341-368, 06.
  13. Arnaud Reynaud & Stephane Couture, 2010. "Stability of Risk Preference Measures: Results From a Field Experiment on French Farmers," LERNA Working Papers, LERNA, University of Toulouse 10.10.316, LERNA, University of Toulouse.
  14. Paolo Crosetto & Antonio Filippin, 2013. "The “bomb” risk elicitation task," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 31-65, August.
  15. Catherine C. Eckel & Philip J. Grossman, 2002. "Sex Differences and Statistical Stereotyping in Attitudes Toward Financial Risk," Development Research Unit Working Paper Series, Monash University, Department of Economics archive-03, Monash University, Department of Economics.
  16. Steffen Andersen & Glenn W. Harrison & Morten I. Lau & E. Elisabet Rutström, 2008. "Eliciting Risk and Time Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, Econometric Society, vol. 76(3), pages 583-618, 05.
  17. Hans Binswanger, 1981. "Attitudes toward risk: Theoretical implications of an experiment in rural india," Artefactual Field Experiments 00010, The Field Experiments Website.
  18. Sarah Jacobson & Ragan Petrie, 2009. "Learning from mistakes: What do inconsistent choices over risk tell us?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 143-158, April.
  19. Gaudecker, Hans-Martin von & van Soest, Arthur & Wengström, Erik, 2009. "Heterogeneity in Risky Choice Behaviour in a Broad Population," IZA Discussion Papers 4022, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
  20. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
  21. Lisa Anderson & Jennifer Mellor, 2009. "Are risk preferences stable? Comparing an experimental measure with a validated survey-based measure," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 137-160, October.
  22. Susan K. Laury, 2006. "Pay One or Pay All: Random Selection of One Choice for Payment," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University 2006-24, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
  23. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-91, March.
  24. Michael Haigh & John List, 2005. "Do professional traders exhibit myopic loss aversion? An experimental analysis," Artefactual Field Experiments 00052, The Field Experiments Website.
  25. Maribeth Coller & Melonie Williams, 1999. "Eliciting Individual Discount Rates," Experimental Economics, Springer, Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 107-127, December.
  26. Kenneth R. MacCrimmon & Donald A. Wehrung, 1990. "Characteristics of Risk Taking Executives," Management Science, INFORMS, INFORMS, vol. 36(4), pages 422-435, April.
  27. Chetan Dave & Catherine Eckel & Cathleen Johnson & Christian Rojas, 2010. "Eliciting risk preferences: When is simple better?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 219-243, December.
  28. Catherine C. Eckel & Philip J. Grossman, 2008. "Forecasting Risk Attitudes: An Experimental Study Using Actual and Forecast Gamble Choices," Development Research Unit Working Paper Series, Monash University, Department of Economics archive-01, Monash University, Department of Economics.
  29. Steffen Andersen & Glenn Harrison & Morten Lau & E. Rutström, 2009. "Elicitation using multiple price list formats," Experimental Economics, Springer, Springer, vol. 12(3), pages 365-366, September.
  30. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L & Thaler, Richard H, 1990. "Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(6), pages 1325-48, December.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. Andersson, Ola & Tyran, Jean-Robert & Wengström, Erik & Holm, Håkan J., 2013. "Risk Aversion Relates to Cognitive Ability: Fact or Fiction?," Working Paper Series, Research Institute of Industrial Economics 964, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
  2. Thomas Buser, 2014. "The Impact of Losing in a Competition on the Willingness to Seek Further Challenges," CESifo Working Paper Series 4904, CESifo Group Munich.
  3. Miraldo, M & Galizzi, M & Stavropoulou, C, 2013. "Doctor-patient differences in risk preferences, and their links to decision-making: a field experiment," Working Papers, Imperial College, London, Imperial College Business School 12578, Imperial College, London, Imperial College Business School.
  4. Thomas Buser, 2014. "The Impact of Losing in a Competition on the Willingness to seek Further Challenges," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 14-083/I, Tinbergen Institute.
  5. Anna Conte & Maria Vittoria Levati & Chiara Nardi, 2014. "Risk preferences and the role of emotions," Working Papers 10/2014, University of Verona, Department of Economics.
  6. Swee-Hoon Chuah & Robert Hoffmann & Jeremy Larner, 2014. "Elicitation effects in a multi-stage bargaining experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 335-345, June.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:87:y:2013:i:c:p:43-51. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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