IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp14702.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Australian Twins Economic Preferences Survey

Author

Listed:
  • Kettlewell, Nathan

    (University of Technology, Sydney)

  • Tymula, Agnieszka

    (University of Sydney)

Abstract

This paper describes the Australian Twins Economic Preferences Survey (ATEPS). The dataset comprises a wide variety of preference and behavioral measures (risk aversion, impatience, ambiguity aversion, trust, confidence) elicited using incentivised decision tasks. 1,120 Australian adult twins (560 pairs) completed the survey, making it one of the largest datasets containing incentivised preference measures of twins. As the survey was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, we also collected information on experiences related to the pandemic, along with a variety of questions on political attitudes and mental wellbeing. We hope that ATEPS can make a valuable contribution to social science and genetics research.

Suggested Citation

  • Kettlewell, Nathan & Tymula, Agnieszka, 2021. "The Australian Twins Economic Preferences Survey," IZA Discussion Papers 14702, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
  • Handle: RePEc:iza:izadps:dp14702
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://docs.iza.org/dp14702.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nicos Nicolaou & Scott Shane, 2019. "Common genetic effects on risk-taking preferences and choices," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 59(3), pages 261-279, December.
    2. Le, Anh T. & Miller, Paul W. & Slutske, Wendy S. & Martin, Nicholas G., 2010. "Are Attitudes Towards Economic Risk Heritable? Analyses Using the Australian Twin Study of Gambling," IZA Discussion Papers 4859, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    4. Armin Falk & Anke Becker & Thomas Dohmen & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2023. "The Preference Survey Module: A Validated Instrument for Measuring Risk, Time, and Social Preferences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(4), pages 1935-1950, April.
    5. Uri Gneezy & Jan Potters, 1997. "An Experiment on Risk Taking and Evaluation Periods," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 631-645.
    6. Itamar Simonson & Aner Sela, 2011. "On the Heritability of Consumer Decision Making: An Exploratory Approach for Studying Genetic Effects on Judgment and Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 37(6), pages 951-966.
    7. Jonathan P. Beauchamp & David Cesarini & Magnus Johannesson, 2017. "The psychometric and empirical properties of measures of risk preferences," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 54(3), pages 203-237, June.
    8. Berg Joyce & Dickhaut John & McCabe Kevin, 1995. "Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 122-142, July.
    9. Ben Gillen & Erik Snowberg & Leeat Yariv, 2019. "Experimenting with Measurement Error: Techniques with Applications to the Caltech Cohort Study," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 127(4), pages 1826-1863.
    10. Philipp M.A. Hübler, 2018. "Heritability of Time Preference: Evidence from German Twin Data," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(3), pages 433-455, August.
    11. David Cesarini & Magnus Johannesson & Paul Lichtenstein & Björn Wallace, 2009. "Heritability of Overconfidence," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 7(2-3), pages 617-627, 04-05.
    12. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    13. Cheung, Stephen L. & Johnstone, Lachlan, 2017. "True Overconfidence, Revealed through Actions: An Experiment," IZA Discussion Papers 10545, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Pop-Eleches, Cristian & Pop-Eleches, Grigore, 2012. "Targeted Government Spending and Political Preferences," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 7(3), pages 285-320, June.
    15. David Cesarini & Christopher T. Dawes & Magnus Johannesson & Paul Lichtenstein & Björn Wallace, 2009. "Genetic Variation in Preferences for Giving and Risk Taking," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 124(2), pages 809-842.
    16. Benhabib, Jess & Bisin, Alberto & Schotter, Andrew, 2010. "Present-bias, quasi-hyperbolic discounting, and fixed costs," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 205-223, July.
    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. Kettlewell, Nathan & Levy, Jonathan & Tymula, Agnieszka & Wang, Xueting, 2023. "The Gender Reference Point Gap," IZA Discussion Papers 16138, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Kettlewell, Nathan & Tymula, Agnieszka & Yoo, Hong Il, 2023. "The Heritability of Economic Preferences," IZA Discussion Papers 16633, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    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. Kettlewell, Nathan & Tymula, Agnieszka & Yoo, Hong Il, 2023. "The Heritability of Economic Preferences," IZA Discussion Papers 16633, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Fallucchi, Francesco & Nosenzo, Daniele & Reuben, Ernesto, 2020. "Measuring preferences for competition with experimentally-validated survey questions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 402-423.
    3. Holden, Stein T. & Tilahun, Mesfin, 2022. "Can the risky investment game predict real world investments?," CLTS Working Papers 5/22, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies.
    4. Burnham, Terence C., 2013. "Toward a neo-Darwinian synthesis of neoclassical and behavioral economics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 90(S), pages 113-127.
    5. Michele Garagnani, 2023. "The predictive power of risk elicitation tasks," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 67(2), pages 165-192, October.
    6. Anne Corcos & François Pannequin & Sacha Bourgeois-Gironde, 2012. "Aversions to Trust," Recherches économiques de Louvain, De Boeck Université, vol. 78(3), pages 115-134.
    7. Pablo Brañas‐Garza & Matteo M. Galizzi & Jeroen Nieboer, 2018. "Experimental And Self‐Reported Measures Of Risk Taking And Digit Ratio (2d:4d): Evidence From A Large, Systematic Study," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 59(3), pages 1131-1157, August.
    8. Nicos Nicolaou & Scott Shane, 2019. "Common genetic effects on risk-taking preferences and choices," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 59(3), pages 261-279, December.
    9. Zakaria Babutsidze & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2021. "Nonverbal content and trust: An experiment on digital communication," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 59(4), pages 1517-1532, October.
    10. Zimmermann, Klaus F. & Chowdhury, Shyamal & Sutter, Matthias, 2020. "Economic preferences across generations and family clusters: A large-scale experiment," CEPR Discussion Papers 14998, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    11. David Cesarini & Magnus Johannesson & Patrik K. E. Magnusson & Björn Wallace, 2012. "The Behavioral Genetics of Behavioral Anomalies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(1), pages 21-34, January.
    12. Francisco Molins & Fatmanur Sahin & Miguel Ángel Serrano, 2022. "The Genetics of Risk Aversion: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-22, November.
    13. Dahmann, Sarah C. & Kettlewell, Nathan & Lam, Jack, 2022. "Parental Separation and the Formation of Economic Preferences," IZA Discussion Papers 14993, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Joshua Tasoff & Wenjie Zhang, 2022. "The Performance of Time-Preference and Risk-Preference Measures in Surveys," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(2), pages 1149-1173, February.
    15. Fabien Perez & Guillaume Hollard & Radu Vranceanu, 2021. "How serious is the measurement-error problem in risk-aversion tasks?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 63(3), pages 319-342, December.
    16. M. Vittoria Levati & Stefan Napel & Ivan Soraperra, 2017. "Collective Choices Under Ambiguity," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 133-149, January.
    17. Jonathan Chapman & Erik Snowberg & Stephanie Wang & Colin Camerer, 2022. "Looming Large or Seeming Small? Attitudes Towards Losses in a Representative Sample," CESifo Working Paper Series 9820, CESifo.
    18. Eriksen, Kristoffer W. & Kvaløy, Ola & Luzuriaga, Miguel, 2020. "Risk-taking on behalf of others," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 26(C).
    19. Ola Andersson & Håkan J. Holm & Jean-Robert Tyran & Erik Wengström, 2020. "Robust inference in risk elicitation tasks," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 61(3), pages 195-209, December.
    20. Yan Chen & Iman YeckehZaare & Ark Fangzhou Zhang, 2018. "Real or bogus: Predicting susceptibility to phishing with economic experiments," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-18, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    economic preferences; twins; twin study;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D90 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - General
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General
    • Y90 - Miscellaneous Categories - - Other - - - Other

    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:iza:izadps:dp14702. 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: Holger Hinte (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/izaaade.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.