IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ajarec/v58y2014i3p336-352.html

Measuring the risk attitude of decision-makers: are there differences between groups of methods and persons?

Author

Listed:
  • Syster C. Maart-Noelck
  • Oliver Musshoff

Abstract

type="main" xml:id="ajar620-abs-0001"> Many studies quantifying individual risk preferences of test persons show that results of different measuring methods may vary. Additional reservations about the reliability of the results regarding the risk attitude measurement arise from the fact that most studies are based on convenience groups, such as students or businessmen in developing countries. With this in mind, we systematically compare different measuring methods to answer the question how the choice of method affects the results. Moreover, we compare the risk preferences of German farmers with those of students and Kazakhstani farmers to investigate whether farmers’ risk preferences can be approximated through those of convenience groups. The methods applied comprise an incentive-compatible Holt-and-Laury-lottery as well as two psychometric methods. Results show that students respond consistently across all three elicitation methods whereas German and Kazakhstani farmers are more inconsistent. Significant differences exist in the responses of German students and German farmers. The comparison of risk preferences between German and Kazakhstani farmers, however, reveals significant similarities with respect to the psychometric methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Syster C. Maart-Noelck & Oliver Musshoff, 2014. "Measuring the risk attitude of decision-makers: are there differences between groups of methods and persons?," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 58(3), pages 336-352, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:ajarec:v:58:y:2014:i:3:p:336-352
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/ajar.2014.58.issue-3
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    More about this item

    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:bla:ajarec:v:58:y:2014:i:3:p:336-352. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaresea.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.