IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceco/v81y2019icp39-46.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Internal and external validity: Comparing two simple risk elicitation tasks

Author

Listed:
  • Dasgupta, Utteeyo
  • Mani, Subha
  • Sharma, Smriti
  • Singhal, Saurabh

Abstract

Researchers often need to elicit risk attitudes in field experiments or in laboratory experiments. However, choosing a risk elicitation task can be a source of concern, as risk attitudes have been often shown to vary dramatically across tasks. Using a large sample of approximately 2,000 subjects in a within-subjects design, we compare behavior in two commonly used incentivized risk elicitation tasks – the investment game and the ordered lottery choice game – recognized for their simplicity and ease of implementation. We find that risk attitudes elicited from the two tasks show considerable internal consistency, and importantly, have similar predictive validity for behavior in a different task with built-in uncertainty. We also explore determinants of inconsistency between the two risk tasks.

Suggested Citation

  • Dasgupta, Utteeyo & Mani, Subha & Sharma, Smriti & Singhal, Saurabh, 2019. "Internal and external validity: Comparing two simple risk elicitation tasks," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 39-46.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:81:y:2019:i:c:p:39-46
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socec.2019.05.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804318301782
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socec.2019.05.005?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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Collier, Trevor & Cotten, Stephen & Roush, Justin, 2022. "Using pandemic behavior to test the external validity of laboratory measurements of risk aversion and guilt," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    2. Maran, Thomas & Ravet-Brown, Theo & Angerer, Martin & Furtner, Marco & Huber, Stefan E., 2020. "Intelligence predicts choice in decision-making strategies," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    3. Beine, Michel & Charness, Gary & Dupuy, Arnaud & Joxhe, Majlinda, 2020. "Shaking Things Up: On the Stability of Risk and Time Preferences," IZA Discussion Papers 13084, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    4. Raymond Boadi Frempong & David Stadelmann, 2021. "Risk preference and child labor: Econometric evidence," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(2), pages 878-894, May.
    5. Michel Beine & Gary Charness & Arnaud Dupuy, 2021. "Emigration Intentions and Risk Aversion: Causal Evidence from Albania," CESifo Working Paper Series 9484, CESifo.
    6. Basu, Arnab K. & Dimova, Ralitza, 2021. "Household Preferences and Child Labor in Rural Ethiopia," IZA Discussion Papers 14062, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Risk preferences; Experiment design; Elicitation methods; India;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • C81 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Microeconomic Data; Data Access
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    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:soceco:v:81:y:2019:i:c:p:39-46. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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/inca/620175 .

    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.