IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0267696.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effect of domain and framing on elicited risk aversion

Author

Listed:
  • María Paz Espinosa
  • Lara Ezquerra

Abstract

Experimental literature has found that risk attitudes are not robust to different elicitation techniques. However, most comparisons across elicitation methods involve different rewards and framings simultaneously. Our experimental design helps to disentangle the effect of these two factors. We consider two different personal rewards (money domain and grade domain) and two different scenarios while keeping the reward constant (lottery framing and exam framing). We find no differences in elicited risk aversion between the two domains. However, framing matters: elicited risk aversion is lower in the exam framing.

Suggested Citation

  • María Paz Espinosa & Lara Ezquerra, 2022. "The effect of domain and framing on elicited risk aversion," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(9), pages 1-17, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0267696
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267696
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0267696
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0267696&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0267696?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    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. Deck, Cary & Lee, Jungmin & Reyes, Javier A. & Rosen, Christopher C., 2013. "A failed attempt to explain within subject variation in risk taking behavior using domain specific risk attitudes," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-24.
    4. Arnaud Reynaud & Stéphane Couture, 2012. "Stability of risk preference measures: results from a field experiment on French farmers," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(2), pages 203-221, August.
    5. John D Hey, 2018. "Experiments in Economics:Decision Making and Markets," World Scientific Books, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., number 10872.
    6. 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.
    7. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Imas, Alex, 2013. "Experimental methods: Eliciting risk preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 43-51.
    8. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri, 2012. "Strong Evidence for Gender Differences in Risk Taking," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 50-58.
    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. Ranganathan, Kavitha & Lejarraga, Tomás, 2021. "Elicitation of risk preferences through satisficing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    2. Marianne Lefebvre & Estelle Midler & Philippe Bontems, 2020. "Adoption of Environment-Friendly Agricultural Practices with Background Risk: Experimental Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 76(2), pages 405-428, July.
    3. Fairley, Kim & Parelman, Jacob M. & Jones, Matt & Carter, R. McKell, 2019. "Risky health choices and the Balloon Economic Risk Protocol," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 15-33.
    4. 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).
    5. 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.
    6. Menkhoff, Lukas & Sakha, Sahra, 2017. "Estimating risky behavior with multiple-item risk measures," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 59-86.
    7. Crosetto, P. & Filippin, A., 2017. "Safe options induce gender differences in risk attitudes," Working Papers 2017-05, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).
    8. 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.
    9. Chi Wai Yu & Y. Jane Zhang & Sharon Xuejing Zuo, 2021. "Multiple Switching and Data Quality in the Multiple Price List," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 103(1), pages 136-150, March.
    10. Paolo Crosetto & Antonio Filippin, 2023. "Safe options and gender differences in risk attitudes," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 66(1), pages 19-46, February.
    11. Rafaï, Ismaël & Blayac, Thierry & Dubois, Dimitri & Duchêne, Sébastien & Nguyen-Van, Phu & Ventelou, Bruno & Willinger, Marc, 2023. "Stated preferences outperform elicited preferences for predicting reported compliance with COVID-19 prophylactic measures," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    12. Wenting Zhou & John Hey, 2018. "Context matters," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(4), pages 723-756, December.
    13. Antonio Filippin & Marco Mantovani, 2023. "Risk aversion and information aggregation in binary‐asset markets," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 14(2), pages 753-798, May.
    14. Lefebvre, Marianne & Midler, Estelle & Bontems, Philippe, 2020. "Adoption of environmentally-friendly agricultural practices with background risk: experimental evidence," TSE Working Papers 20-1079, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    15. 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).
    16. 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.
    17. Holzmeister, Felix & Stefan, Matthias, 2019. "The Risk Elicitation Puzzle Revisited: Across-Methods (In)consistency?," OSF Preprints pj9u2, Center for Open Science.
    18. Peilu Zhang & Marco A. Palma, 2021. "Compulsory Versus Voluntary Insurance: An Online Experiment," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(1), pages 106-125, January.
    19. Bougherara, Douadia & Friesen, Lana & Nauges, Céline, 2022. "Risk-taking and skewness-seeking behavior in a demographically diverse population," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 201(C), pages 83-104.
    20. Paolo Crosetto & Antonio Filippin, 2013. "A Theoretical and Experimental Appraisal of Five Risk Elicitation Methods," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 547, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).

    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:plo:pone00:0267696. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.