IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0320576.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Holt-Laury as a gumball machine

Author

Listed:
  • Mónica Vasco
  • María J Vázquez-De Francisco

Abstract

The Holt and Laury [1] task is arguably the most widely employed method for eliciting individual risk attitudes in economics. However, although around 15% of standard experimental subjects fail to complete the task consistently, this fraction increases to an alarming 60-70% in the case of children, teenagers, and other non-standard subject pools. This paper explores extensively a visual version of the Holt and Laury task, where subjects choose six times between two gumball machines. Using a sample of 4,972 adolescents, we find that the Gumball Machine task decreases the presence of inconsistencies substantially to 20%. Cognitive skills appear to be a strong predictor of consistency and risk preferences, but gender differences are not found.

Suggested Citation

  • Mónica Vasco & María J Vázquez-De Francisco, 2025. "Holt-Laury as a gumball machine," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(4), pages 1-13, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0320576
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0320576
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0320576
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0320576&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0320576?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. 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. Uri Gneezy & Jan Potters, 1997. "An Experiment on Risk Taking and Evaluation Periods," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 631-645.
    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. Pablo Brañas‐Garza & Matteo M. Galizzi & Jeroen Nieboer, 2018. "Experimental And Self‐Reported Measures Of Risk Taking And Digit Ratio (2d:4d): Evidence From A Large, Systematic Study," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 59(3), pages 1131-1157, August.
    3. Sule Alan & Seda Ertac & Elif Kubilay & Gyongyi Loranth, 2020. "Understanding Gender Differences in Leadership," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 130(626), pages 263-289.
    4. Jonathan Chapman & Erik Snowberg & Stephanie Wang & Colin Camerer, 2018. "Loss Attitudes in the U.S. Population: Evidence from Dynamically Optimized Sequential Experimentation (DOSE)," NBER Working Papers 25072, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Cecchi, Francesco & Melesse, Mequanint Biset, 2016. "Formal law and customary change: A lab-in-field experiment in Ethiopia," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 67-85.
    6. Holzmeister, Felix, 2017. "oTree: Ready-made apps for risk preference elicitation methods," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 33-38.
    7. Paul Bokern & Jona Linde & Arno Riedl & Peter Werner, 2023. "The Robustness of Preferences during a Crisis: The Case of Covid-19," CESifo Working Paper Series 10595, CESifo.
    8. Paolo Crosetto & Antonio Filippin, 2013. "The “bomb” risk elicitation task," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 31-65, August.
    9. Michele Garagnani, 2023. "The predictive power of risk elicitation tasks," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 67(2), pages 165-192, October.
    10. Schipper, Burkhard C., 2023. "Sex hormones and choice under risk," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    11. Antonio Filippin, 2022. "Gender differences in risk attitudes," IZA World of Labor, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA), pages 100-100, October.
    12. d’Albis, Hippolyte & Attanasi, Giuseppe & Thibault, Emmanuel, 2020. "An experimental test of the under-annuitization puzzle with smooth ambiguity and charitable giving," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 694-717.
    13. Batista, Catia & McKenzie, David, 2023. "Testing classic theories of migration in the lab," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    14. Muriel Niederle, 2014. "Gender," NBER Working Papers 20788, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. Biener, Christian & Eling, Martin & Lehmann, Martin, 2020. "Balancing the desire for privacy against the desire to hedge risk," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 608-620.
    17. Eriksen, Kristoffer W. & Kvaløy, Ola & Luzuriaga, Miguel, 2020. "Risk-taking on behalf of others," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 26(C).
    18. Natanael Waraney Gerald Massie & Chaikal Nuryakin, 2020. "When Prime Depositors Run On The Banks: A Behavioral Approach," Bulletin of Monetary Economics and Banking, Bank Indonesia, vol. 23(1), pages 139-152, April.
    19. Zexuan Wang & Ismaël Rafaï & Marc Willinger, 2023. "Does age affect the relation between risk and time preferences? Evidence from a representative sample," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 90(2), pages 341-368, October.
    20. Pin, Paolo & Rotesi, Tiziano, 2023. "App-based experiments," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).

    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:pone00:0320576. 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.