IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/joepsy/v60y2017icp7-20.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Intertemporal stability of uncertainty preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Duersch, Peter
  • Römer, Daniel
  • Roth, Benjamin

Abstract

We analyze the stability of ambiguity preferences experimentally, by repeatedly eliciting ambiguity attitudes towards multiple 3-color Ellsberg urns over a period of two months. 57% of the choices show stable preferences over this time period. This is significantly higher than random choices would suggest, but significantly lower than the level of consistency when measures are taken back-to-back (75%). Over the same time frame, we do not find a significant change in the consistency of risk preferences. For subjects who are able to recall their ambiguity decision after two months correctly, the share of consistent choices does not drop significantly over time.

Suggested Citation

  • Duersch, Peter & Römer, Daniel & Roth, Benjamin, 2017. "Intertemporal stability of uncertainty preferences," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 7-20.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:joepsy:v:60:y:2017:i:c:p:7-20
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joep.2017.01.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167487016305116
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joep.2017.01.008?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. Nicolás Salamanca & Buly A. Cardak & Edwin Ip & Joe Vecci, 2023. "Time-stability of risk preferences: A new approach with evidence from developed and developing countries," Discussion Papers 2305, University of Exeter, Department of Economics.
    2. Li, Jiangyan & Fairley, Kim & Fenneman, Achiel, 2024. "Does it matter how we produce ambiguity in experiments?," MPRA Paper 122336, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Freudenreich, Hanna & Musshoff, Oliver, 2022. "Experience of losses and aversion to uncertainty - experimental evidence from farmers in Mexico," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    4. Freudenreich, Hanna & Musshoff, Oliver & Wiercinski, Ben, 2017. "The Relationship between Farmers' Shock Experiences and their Uncertainty Preferences - Experimental Evidence from Mexico," GlobalFood Discussion Papers 256212, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    5. Kocher, Martin G. & Lahno, Amrei Marie & Trautmann, Stefan T., 2018. "Ambiguity aversion is not universal," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 268-283.
    6. Golsteyn, Bart H. H. & Schildberg-Hörisch, Hannah, 2017. "Challenges in research on preferences and personality traits: Measurement, stability, and inference," DICE Discussion Papers 263, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    7. Dominiak, Adam & Duersch, Peter, 2019. "Interactive Ellsberg tasks: An experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 145-157.
    8. Xuemin Liu & Jiaoju Ge & Ting Ren, 2021. "Uncertainty and Tourism Consumption Preferences: Evidence from the Representative Chinese City of Shenzhen," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-20, April.
    9. Kirchkamp, Oliver & Oechssler, Joerg & Sofianos, Andis, 2021. "The Binary Lottery Procedure does not induce risk neutrality in the Holt & Laury and Eckel & Grossman tasks," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 348-369.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Ambiguity; Risk; Stability of preferences; Experiment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • 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:joepsy:v:60:y:2017:i:c:p:7-20. 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/joep .

    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.