IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v238y2019ic1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Survey measures versus incentivized measures of risk preferences: Evidence from sex workers' risky sexual transactions

Author

Listed:
  • Islam, Asad
  • Smyth, Russell
  • Tan, HongQi Alexis
  • Wang, Liang C.

Abstract

Survey measures of risk attitudes are primarily used in the health literature, although incentivized measures of risk preferences are being increasingly used in other fields. We exploit the unique setting of commercial female sex workers in Bangladesh to investigate whether incentivized measures of risk preferences, or non-incentivized survey measures of risk preferences, best identify the risky commercial sex decisions that they make. The study uses survey data collected during February–April 2016, and October–November 2016 from eight brothels in Bangladesh. Wave 1 includes 1,332 female sex workers, Wave 2 includes 1,185 female sex workers. Our findings suggest that researchers can reliably use survey measures to elicit risk preferences on health.

Suggested Citation

  • Islam, Asad & Smyth, Russell & Tan, HongQi Alexis & Wang, Liang C., 2019. "Survey measures versus incentivized measures of risk preferences: Evidence from sex workers' risky sexual transactions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 238(C), pages 1-1.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:238:y:2019:i:c:1
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112497
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953619304903
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112497?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Catherine C. Eckel & Philip J. Grossman, 2002. "Sex Differences and Statistical Stereotyping in Attitudes Toward Financial Risk," Monash Economics Working Papers archive-03, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    2. Lisa Anderson & Jennifer Mellor, 2009. "Are risk preferences stable? Comparing an experimental measure with a validated survey-based measure," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 137-160, October.
    3. 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.
    4. Nancy Luke, 2008. "Economic Status, Informal Exchange, and Sexual Risk in Kisumu, Kenya," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(2), pages 375-396, January.
    5. Tomas J. Philipson & Richard A. Posner, 1995. "A Theoretical and Empirical Investigation of the Effects of Public Health Subsidies for STD Testing," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 110(2), pages 445-474.
    6. 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.
    7. Hirsch, Barry T. & Schumacher, Edward J., 2005. "Classic or new monopsony? Searching for evidence in nursing labor markets," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 969-989, September.
    8. Abigail Barr & Garance Genicot, 2008. "Risk Sharing, Commitment, and Information: An Experimental Analysis," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 6(6), pages 1151-1185, December.
    9. Islam Asadul & Smyth Russell, 2012. "The Economic Returns to Good Looks and Risky Sex in the Bangladesh Commercial Sex Market," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 1-25, May.
    10. Cooper, Jan E. & Dow, William H. & de Walque, Damien & Keller, Ann C. & McCoy, Sandra I. & Fernald, Lia C.H. & Balampama, Marianna P. & Kalolella, Admirabilis & Packel, Laura J. & Wechsberg, Wendee M., 2017. "Female sex workers use power over their day-to-day lives to meet the condition of a conditional cash transfer intervention to incentivize safe sex," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 181(C), pages 148-157.
    11. Luke, Nancy, 2006. "Exchange and Condom Use in Informal Sexual Relationships in Urban Kenya," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 54(2), pages 319-348, January.
    12. Jonathan Robinson & Ethan Yeh, 2011. "Transactional Sex as a Response to Risk in Western Kenya," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 3(1), pages 35-64, January.
    13. Bernd Hardeweg & Lukas Menkhoff & Hermann Waibel, 2013. "Experimentally Validated Survey Evidence on Individual Risk Attitudes in Rural Thailand," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 61(4), pages 859-888.
    14. Catherine C. Eckel & Philip J. Grossman, 2008. "Forecasting Risk Attitudes: An Experimental Study Using Actual and Forecast Gamble Choices," Monash Economics Working Papers archive-01, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    15. Verschoor, Arjan & D’Exelle, Ben & Perez-Viana, Borja, 2016. "Lab and life: Does risky choice behaviour observed in experiments reflect that in the real world?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 134-148.
    16. Epstein, Andrew J. & Nicholson, Sean, 2009. "The formation and evolution of physician treatment styles: An application to cesarean sections," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 1126-1140, December.
    17. Auld, M. Christopher, 2003. "Choices, beliefs, and infectious disease dynamics," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 361-377, May.
    18. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Imas, Alex, 2013. "Experimental methods: Eliciting risk preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 43-51.
    19. Chetan Dave & Catherine Eckel & Cathleen Johnson & Christian Rojas, 2010. "Eliciting risk preferences: When is simple better?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 219-243, December.
    20. Michael Kremer, 1996. "Integrating Behavioral Choice into Epidemiological Models of AIDS," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 111(2), pages 549-573.
    21. Anderson, Lisa R. & Mellor, Jennifer M., 2008. "Predicting health behaviors with an experimental measure of risk preference," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 1260-1274, September.
    22. Cunningham, Scott & Shah, Manisha (ed.), 2016. "The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Prostitution," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199915248, Decembrie.
    23. Davey, Calum & Cowan, Frances & Hargreaves, James, 2018. "The effect of mobility on HIV-related healthcare access and use for female sex workers: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 261-273.
    24. Lönnqvist, Jan-Erik & Verkasalo, Markku & Walkowitz, Gari & Wichardt, Philipp C., 2015. "Measuring individual risk attitudes in the lab: Task or ask? An empirical comparison," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 254-266.
    25. Rao, Vijayendra & Gupta, Indrani & Lokshin, Michael & Jana, Smarajit, 2003. "Sex workers and the cost of safe sex: the compensating differential for condom use among Calcutta prostitutes," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 585-603, August.
    26. Michael Kremer, 1996. "Integrating Behavioral Choice into Epidemiological Models of the AIDS Epidemic," NBER Working Papers 5428, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Tamás Csermely & Alexander Rabas, 2016. "How to reveal people’s preferences: Comparing time consistency and predictive power of multiple price list risk elicitation methods," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 107-136, December.
    2. Menkhoff, Lukas & Sakha, Sahra, 2017. "Estimating risky behavior with multiple-item risk measures," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 59-86.
    3. Verschoor, Arjan & D’Exelle, Ben & Perez-Viana, Borja, 2016. "Lab and life: Does risky choice behaviour observed in experiments reflect that in the real world?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 134-148.
    4. Holzmeister, Felix & Stefan, Matthias, 2019. "The Risk Elicitation Puzzle Revisited: Across-Methods (In)consistency?," OSF Preprints pj9u2, Center for Open Science.
    5. Murong Yang & Laurence S. J. Roope & James Buchanan & Arthur E. Attema & Philip M. Clarke & A. Sarah Walker & Sarah Wordsworth, 2022. "Eliciting risk preferences that predict risky health behavior: A comparison of two approaches," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(5), pages 836-858, May.
    6. Pan He & Marcella Veronesi & Stefanie Engel, 2016. "Consistency of Risk Preference Measures and the Role of Ambiguity: An Artefactual Field Experiment from China," Working Papers 03/2016, University of Verona, Department of Economics.
    7. Felix Holzmeister & Matthias Stefan, 2021. "The risk elicitation puzzle revisited: Across-methods (in)consistency?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(2), pages 593-616, June.
    8. Felix Holzmeister & Matthias Stefan, 2019. "The risk elicitation puzzle revisited: Across-methods (in)consistency?," Working Papers 2019-19, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    9. Ranganathan, Kavitha & Lejarraga, Tomás, 2021. "Elicitation of risk preferences through satisficing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    10. Gary Charness & Thomas Garcia & Theo Offerman & Marie Claire Villeval, 2020. "Do measures of risk attitude in the laboratory predict behavior under risk in and outside of the laboratory?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 60(2), pages 99-123, April.
    11. Menkhoff, Lukas & Sakha, Sahra, 2014. "Multiple-item risk measures," Kiel Working Papers 1980, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    12. Shaoze Jin & Xiangping Jia & Harvey S. James, 2021. "Risk attitudes within farmer cooperative organizations: Evidence from China's fresh apple industry," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 92(2), pages 173-205, June.
    13. Robert Finger & David Wüpper & Chloe McCallum, 2023. "The (in)stability of farmer risk preferences," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(1), pages 155-167, February.
    14. Bauermeister, Golo-Friedrich & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2016. "Risk Attitude And Inconsistencies - Does The Choice Of Display Format And Risk Elicitation Method Influence The Outcomes?," 56th Annual Conference, Bonn, Germany, September 28-30, 2016 244764, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    15. Utteeyo Dasgupta & Subha Mani & Smriti Sharma & Saurabh Singhal, 2016. "Eliciting risk preferences: Firefighting in the field," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2016-47, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    16. Paolo Crosetto & Antonio Filippin, 2016. "A theoretical and experimental appraisal of four risk elicitation methods," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(3), pages 613-641, September.
    17. Galizzi, Matteo M. & Machado, Sara R. & Miniaci, Raffaele, 2016. "Temporal stability, cross-validity, and external validity of risk preferences measures: experimental evidence from a UK representative sample," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 67554, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    18. Hermansson, Cecilia, 2018. "Can self-assessed financial risk measures explain and predict bank customers’ objective financial risk?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 226-240.
    19. Dasgupta, Utteeyo & Mani, Subha & Sharma, Smriti & Singhal, Saurabh, 2016. "Eliciting Risk Preferences: Firefighting in the Field," IZA Discussion Papers 9765, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    20. Giuseppe Attanasi & Nikolaos Georgantzís & Valentina Rotondi & Daria Vigani, 2018. "Lottery- and survey-based risk attitudes linked through a multichoice elicitation task," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(3), pages 341-372, May.

    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:socmed:v:238:y:2019:i:c:1. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.