IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/gewi11/114490.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Die Analyse der Rationalität im Verhalten von Stakeholdern des Agribusiness anhand eines Experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Steinhorst, Martin P.
  • Bahrs, Enno

Abstract

Ziel des Beitrags ist es, die Rationalität von Stakeholdern des Agribusiness mit einem Entscheidungsexperiment zu analysieren. Dazu wurden Landwirte und Agrarhändler3 gebeten, Lotterielose zu bewerten. So konnte die Konsistenz im Risikoverhalten und die Präzision im Umgang mit Information über Wahrscheinlichkeiten beurteilt werden. Das Experiment verdeutlicht zum einen, dass bei einer Einteilung in risikoaverses, risikoneutrales und risikofreudiges Verhalten keine generellen Unterschiede in der Risikoeinstellung von Landwirten und Agrarhändlern festzustellen sind. Zum anderen zeigt sich, was die Konsistenz im Risikoverhalten angeht, dass nur ein Teil der befragten Landwirte und Agrarhändler im Experiment eine Risikoeinstellung beibehalten und entsprechend konsistente Antworten geben. Viele Probanden gaben fortwährend inkonsistente Antworten und sind deshalb als irrationale Entscheider einzustufen. Einige Probanden sind im Umgang mit quasi sicheren Ereignissen als begrenzt rationale Akteure zu identifizieren. Die begrenzt rationalen Akteure wählten dabei eine Antwort, die zwar zu ihrer bis dahin gezeigten Risikoeinstellung konsistent war, doch sie erkannten nicht, dass das Ergebnis einer Lotterie quasi sicher nicht in dem von ihnen gewählten Bereich liegt. Nur etwa die Hälfte der befragten Landwirte und Agrarhändler lässt durch ihr Verhalten vermuten, dass sie Risikoveränderungen sowohl in ihrer Tendenz als auch präzise abzuschätzen wissen. Dabei sind diese Probanden in der Lage, konsistente Risikoentscheidungen zu treffen. Darüber hinaus zeigt die Analyse, dass zwischen Landwirten und Agrarhändlern keine wesentlichen Unterschiede in der Rationalität bestehen.

Suggested Citation

  • Steinhorst, Martin P. & Bahrs, Enno, 2011. "Die Analyse der Rationalität im Verhalten von Stakeholdern des Agribusiness anhand eines Experiments," 51st Annual Conference, Halle, Germany, September 28-30, 2011 114490, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:gewi11:114490
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.114490
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/114490/files/steinhorst.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.114490?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Loomes, Graham & Starmer, Chris & Sugden, Robert, 1991. "Observing Violations of Transitivity by Experimental Methods," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(2), pages 425-439, March.
    2. Artavia, M. & Deppermann, A. & Filler, G. & Grethe, H. & Häger, A. & Kirschke, D. & Odening, M., 2011. "Ertrags- und Preisinstabilität auf Agrarmärkten in Deutschland und der EU," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 46, March.
    3. Odening, Martin & Mu[ss]hoff, Oliver & Hirschauer, Norbert & Balmann, Alfons, 2007. "Investment under uncertainty--Does competition matter?," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 994-1014, March.
    4. Mußhoff, O. & Hirschauer, N. & Waßmuß, H., 2010. "Sind landwirtschaftliche Unternehmer bei Zinssätzen zahlenblind? Erste empirische Ergebnisse," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 45, March.
    5. Alexander Klos & Elke U. Weber & Martin Weber, 2005. "Investment Decisions and Time Horizon: Risk Perception and Risk Behavior in Repeated Gambles," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(12), pages 1777-1790, December.
    6. Tversky, Amos & Slovic, Paul & Kahneman, Daniel, 1990. "The Causes of Preference Reversal," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(1), pages 204-217, March.
    7. Herbert A. Simon & Massimo Egidi & Ricardo Viale & Robin Marris, 1992. "Economics, Bounded Rationality and the Cognitive Revolution," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 409.
    8. Shlomo Benartzi & Richard H. Thaler, 1999. "Risk Aversion or Myopia? Choices in Repeated Gambles and Retirement Investments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(3), pages 364-381, March.
    9. Langer, Thomas & Weber, Martin, 2005. "Myopic prospect theory vs. myopic loss aversion: how general is the phenomenon?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 25-38, January.
    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


    Cited by:

    1. Reise, Christian & Liebe, Ulf & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2012. "Präferenzen von Landwirten bei der Gestaltung von Substratlieferverträgen für Biogasanlagen: Ein Choice-Experiment," Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, vol. 61(3).
    2. Reise, Christian & Liebe, Ulf & Musshoff, Oliver, 2012. "Design of substrate supply contracts for biogas plants," 2012 Conference (56th), February 7-10, 2012, Fremantle, Australia 124428, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    3. Reise, Christian & Liebe, Ulf & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2012. "Präferenzen von Landwirten bei der Gestaltung von Substratlieferverträgen für Biogasanlagen: Ein Choice-Experiment," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 61(03), pages 1-16, August.

    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. Steinhorst, M.P. & Bahrs, E., 2012. "Die Analyse der Rationalität im Verhalten von Stakeholdern des Agribusiness anhand eines Experiments," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 47, March.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:5:p:617-629 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Alexander Klos, 2013. "Myopic loss aversion: Potential causes of replication failures," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(5), pages 617-629, September.
    4. Michael L. DeKay, 2011. "Are Medical Outcomes Fungible? A Survey of Voters, Medical Administrators, and Physicians," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(2), pages 338-353, March.
    5. Sergio Sousa, 2010. "Small-scale changes in wealth and attitudes toward risk," Discussion Papers 2010-11, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    6. Howard Kunreuther & Erwann Michel-Kerjan, 2015. "Demand for fixed-price multi-year contracts: Experimental evidence from insurance decisions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 171-194, October.
    7. Elie Matta & Jean McGuire, 2008. "Too Risky to Hold? The Effect of Downside Risk, Accumulated Equity Wealth, and Firm Performance on CEO Equity Reduction," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 567-580, August.
    8. Iturbe-Ormaetxe, Iñigo & Ponti, Giovanni & Tomás, Josefa, 2019. "Is it myopia or loss aversion? A study on investment game experiments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 36-40.
    9. John Beshears & James J. Choi & David Laibson & Brigitte C. Madrian, 2017. "Does Aggregated Returns Disclosure Increase Portfolio Risk Taking?," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 30(6), pages 1971-2005.
    10. Weber, Martin & Langer, Thomas, 2003. "Does Binding of Feedback Influence Myopic Loss Aversion? An Experimental Analysis," CEPR Discussion Papers 4084, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    11. Charles-Cadogan, G., 2021. "Incoherent Preferences," CRETA Online Discussion Paper Series 69, Centre for Research in Economic Theory and its Applications CRETA.
    12. Yoram Amiel & Frank Cowell & Liema Davidovitz & Avraham Polovin, 2008. "Preference reversals and the analysis of income distributions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 30(2), pages 305-330, February.
    13. Christine Kaufmann & Martin Weber & Emily Haisley, 2013. "The Role of Experience Sampling and Graphical Displays on One's Investment Risk Appetite," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(2), pages 323-340, July.
    14. Graham Loomes, 2005. "Modelling the Stochastic Component of Behaviour in Experiments: Some Issues for the Interpretation of Data," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 8(4), pages 301-323, December.
    15. Guo, Liang, 2021. "Contextual deliberation and the choice-valuation preference reversal," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    16. Uri Benzion & Yochanan Shachmurove & Joseph Yagil, 2004. "Subjective discount functions - an experimental approach," Applied Financial Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(5), pages 299-311.
    17. Chris Starmer, 1999. "Cycling with Rules of Thumb: An Experimental Test for a new form of Non-Transitive Behaviour," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 139-157, April.
    18. Sergio Sousa, 2010. "Small-scale changes in wealth and attitudes toward risk," Discussion Papers 2010-11, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    19. Hueber, Laura & Schwaiger, Rene, 2022. "Debiasing through experience sampling: The case of myopic loss aversion," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 198(C), pages 87-138.
    20. Schwaiger, Rene & Hueber, Laura, 2021. "Do MTurkers exhibit myopic loss aversion?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    21. Elizabeth C. Webb & Suzanne B. Shu, 2017. "Is broad bracketing always better? How broad decision framing leads to more optimal preferences over repeated gambles," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(4), pages 382-395, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agribusiness;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:gewi11:114490. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gewisea.html .

    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.