IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Three Risk-elicitation Methods in the Field - Evidence from Rural Senegal


  • Charness, Gary
  • Viceisza, Angelino


In the past decade, it has become common to use simple laboratory games and decision tasks as a device for measuring risk preferences in the developing world. In this paper, we build on existing taxonomies for risk-elicitation and discuss pros and cons of using such methods in developing-country contexts. We use three distinct riskelicitation mechanisms (the Holt–Laury task, the Gneezy–Potters mechanism, and a non-incentivized willingness-to-risk scale) and subjects from rural Senegal. Our study provides some guidance to researchers wishing to use risk-elicitation mechanisms in the rural developing world.

Suggested Citation

  • Charness, Gary & Viceisza, Angelino, 2016. "Three Risk-elicitation Methods in the Field - Evidence from Rural Senegal," Review of Behavioral Economics, now publishers, vol. 3(2), pages 145-171, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:now:jnlrbe:105.00000046

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. repec:taf:apeclt:v:26:y:2019:i:1:p:58-63 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Golo-Friedrich Bauermeister & Oliver Mußhoff, 2019. "Multiple switching behaviour in different display formats of multiple price lists," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1), pages 58-63, January.
    4. repec:eee:ecolet:v:172:y:2018:i:c:p:107-109 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. repec:eee:soceco:v:75:y:2018:i:c:p:31-44 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. repec:eee:eecrev:v:101:y:2018:i:c:p:20-34 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. repec:kap:jrisku:v:56:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s11166-018-9274-6 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Holden , Stein T. & Tilahun , Mesfin, 2019. "The Devil is in the Details: Risk Preferences, Choice List Design, and Measurement Error," CLTS Working Papers 3/19, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies, revised 16 Oct 2019.
    9. repec:eee:soceco:v:73:y:2018:i:c:p:22-33 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Brown, Alexander L. & Healy, Paul J., 2018. "Separated decisions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 20-34.

    More about this item


    Risk-elicitation; Field Experiments; Laboratory experiments in the field; Comprehension; Rural Senegal; Microeconomics of Development; Risk Preferences; Choice under Risk/Uncertainty;

    JEL classification:

    • B49 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Economic Methodology - - - Other
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • O13 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Agriculture; Natural Resources; Environment; Other Primary Products
    • O20 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Development Planning and Policy - - - General


    Access and download statistics


    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:now:jnlrbe:105.00000046. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Alet Heezemans). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.