IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/jrp/jrpwrp/2011-069.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Analysis of Risk Attitude Amongst Family Members

Author

Listed:
  • Philomena M. Bacon

    (Department of Economics, Lancaster University Management School, United Kingdom)

  • Anna Conte

    (University of Westminster, London, UK, and Max-Planck-Institute of Economics, Jena)

  • Peter G. Moffatt

    (School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom)

Abstract

The determinants of risk attitude amongst family members are explored using data from the German Socio-Economic Panel over the period 2004 to 2009. The focus of the analysis is the repeated responses to the survey question about general willingness to take risk. Responses to this question are provided on a 0-10 Likert scale. We respect both the ordinality and the panel structure of the data by estimating the random effects ordered probit model. We divide household members into thee types: heads, spouses and offspring. Of the three types, we find that spouses are the most risk averse, and offspring the least risk averse. In view of these findings, we estimate the model separately for the three groups and find different results between the three. For example, household income has a positive effect (on risk-taking) for heads and spouses (particularly strong for spouses), but no effect on offspring. Some effects are similar between the the three groups; for example, risk aversion always increases with age. In the offspring equation, we include both the head's and the spouse's risk attitude as explanatory variables, and find that both have a significantly positive effect on the offspring's risk-attitude, indicating that children tend to inherit the risk attitude of their guardians. We then focus on couples in the data set, and we apply the random effects bivariate ordered probit model to the analysis of the simultaneous determination of the male's and the female's risk attitude. In this model, the individual-specific effects for the male and the female are assumed to have a non-zero correlation, which is estimated to be +0.412. This significantly positive correlation is interpreted as a form of homophily: individuals tend to form partnerships with others having a similar risk attitude. The importance of respecting the ordinality of the data is confirmed when a straightforward (linear) seemingly unrelated model is applied to the same problem; this gives a correlation of only +0.27: a seriously downward-biased estimate of this key parameter.

Suggested Citation

  • Philomena M. Bacon & Anna Conte & Peter G. Moffatt, 2012. "The Analysis of Risk Attitude Amongst Family Members," Jena Economics Research Papers 2011-069, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    • Handle: RePEc:jrp:jrpwrp:2011-069
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://oweb.b67.uni-jena.de/Papers/jerp2011/wp_2011_069.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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, vol. 9(3), pages 522-550, June.
    2. Glenn W. Harrison & John A. List, 2004. "Field Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1009-1055, December.
    3. Rainer Winkelmann, 2005. "Subjective well-being and the family: Results from an ordered probit model with multiple random effects," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 749-761, October.
    4. Masclet, David & Colombier, Nathalie & Denant-Boemont, Laurent & Lohéac, Youenn, 2009. "Group and individual risk preferences: A lottery-choice experiment with self-employed and salaried workers," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 470-484, June.
    5. Daniela Di Cagno & Emanuela Sciubba & Marco Spallone, 2012. "Choosing a gambling partner: testing a model of mutual insurance in the lab," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 72(4), pages 537-571, April.
    6. Guillaume R. Frechette, 2001. "Random-effects ordered probit," Stata Technical Bulletin, StataCorp LP, vol. 10(59).
    7. Ian Bateman & Alistair Munro, 2005. "An Experiment on Risky Choice Amongst Households," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 115(502), pages 176-189, March.
    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. Menkhoff, Lukas & Sakha, Sahra, 2014. "Multiple-item risk measures," Kiel Working Papers 1980, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).

    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. Philomena M. Bacon & Anna Conte & Peter G. Moffatt, 2012. "Risk Attitude in Couples," Jena Economics Research Papers 2012-016, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    2. Philomena M. Bacon & Peter G. Moffatt, 2012. "Mortgage Choice as a Natural Field Experiment on Choice under Risk," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 44(7), pages 1401-1426, October.
    3. Håkan J. Holm & Victor Nee & Sonja Opper, 2020. "Strategic decisions: behavioral differences between CEOs and others," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(1), pages 154-180, March.
    4. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Ning Liu & Peter P. Wakker, 2016. "Group decision rules and group rationality under risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 99-116, April.
    5. Galizzi, Matteo M. & Miraldo, Marisa & Stavropoulou, Charitini & van der Pol, Marjon, 2016. "Doctor–patient differences in risk and time preferences: A field experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 171-182.
    6. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Martinsson & Ping Qin & Matthias Sutter, 2013. "The influence of spouses on household decision making under risk: an experiment in rural China," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(3), pages 383-401, September.
    7. Philomena Bacon & Anna Conte & Peter Moffatt, 2014. "Assortative mating on risk attitude," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(3), pages 389-401, October.
    8. Morone, A. & Morone, P. & Germani, A.R., 2014. "Individual and group behaviour in the traveler's dilemma: An experimental study," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 1-7.
    9. Ranganathan, Kavitha & Lejarraga, Tomás, 2021. "Elicitation of risk preferences through satisficing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    10. Englmaier, Florian & Grimm, Stefan & Schindler, David & Schudy, Simeon, 2018. "The Effect of Incentives in Non-Routine Analytical Team Tasks – Evidence from a Field Experiment," VfS Annual Conference 2017 (Vienna): Alternative Structures for Money and Banking 168286, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    11. Steffen Huck & Wieland Müller, 2012. "Allais for all: Revisiting the paradox in a large representative sample," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 261-293, June.
    12. Meier, Stephan & Sprenger, Charles D., 2013. "Discounting financial literacy: Time preferences and participation in financial education programs," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 159-174.
    13. Krčál, Ondřej & Staněk, Rostislav & Slanicay, Martin, 2019. "Made for the job or by the job? A lab-in-the-field experiment with firefighters," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(4), pages 271-276.
    14. He, Haoran & Martinsson, Peter & Sutter, Matthias, 2012. "Group decision making under risk: An experiment with student couples," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 117(3), pages 691-693.
    15. Matthias Stefan & Jürgen Huber & Michael Kirchler & Matthias Sutter & Markus Walzl, 2020. "Monetary and Social Incentives in Multi-Tasking: The Ranking Substitution Effect," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2020_10, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    16. Huber, Christoph & Huber, Jürgen & Kirchler, Michael, 2021. "Market shocks and professionals’ investment behavior – Evidence from the COVID-19 crash," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    17. Halko, Marja-Liisa & Lappalainen, Olli & Sääksvuori, Lauri, 2021. "Do non-choice data reveal economic preferences? Evidence from biometric data and compensation-scheme choice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 87-104.
    18. Paolo Crosetto & Antonio Filippin & Janna Heider, 2015. "A Study of Outcome Reporting Bias Using Gender Differences in Risk Attitudes," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 61(1), pages 239-262.
    19. Armin Falk & Anke Becker & Thomas Dohmen & Benjamin Enke & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2018. "Global Evidence on Economic Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 133(4), pages 1645-1692.
    20. Julius Pahlke & Sebastian Strasser & Ferdinand Vieider, 2015. "Responsibility effects in decision making under risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 125-146, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Multiple Equation Models; Panel Data; Risk Attitude;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C33 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Models with Panel Data; Spatio-temporal Models
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    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:jrp:jrpwrp:2011-069. 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: Markus Pasche (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.jenecon.de .

    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.