IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/erevae/v43y2016i1p113-135..html

A comparison of hypothetical risk attitude elicitation instruments for explaining farmer crop insurance purchases

Author

Listed:
  • Luisa Menapace
  • Gregory Colson
  • Roberta Raffaelli

Abstract

This article presents evidence on the stability and behavioural validity of alternative survey mechanisms for eliciting farmers' attitudes towards risk. Three hypothetical instruments are considered that differ in terms of the simplicity, context and payoff scale of the decision presented to respondents. Responses are assessed in terms of their relative ability to explain actual farmer crop insurance purchases. Results indicate that measures of risk attitudes are poorly correlated across alternative mechanisms. The strongest positive evidence of behavioural validity is found for the gamble task explicitly defined in the context and scale of farmers' economic activities pertaining to their insurance purchase decision.

Suggested Citation

  • Luisa Menapace & Gregory Colson & Roberta Raffaelli, 2016. "A comparison of hypothetical risk attitude elicitation instruments for explaining farmer crop insurance purchases," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 43(1), pages 113-135.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:erevae:v:43:y:2016:i:1:p:113-135.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/erae/jbv013
    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:oup:erevae:v:43:y:2016:i:1:p:113-135.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.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.