IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/prs/ecstat/estat_0336-1454_2004_num_374_1_7247.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mesurer les préférences individuelles à l'égard du risque

Author

Listed:
  • Luc Arrondel
  • André Masson
  • Daniel Verger

Abstract

[spa] Medir las preferencias individuales respecto al riesgo . Atentos a las dimensiones plural y variadas de los comportamientos frente al riesgo, los últimos desarrollos de la microeconomía de lo incierto multiplican con creces el número de parámetros individuales de preferencia - aversión al riesgo, prudencia, templanza, aversión a la pérdida, etc. - para definirlo. Del mismo modo, los estudios experimentales o de terreno tratan de abarcar esa diversidad al distinguir diferentes tipos de riesgos - pequeños o grandes, riesgos de ganancias o de pérdidas, de consecuencias irreversibles o no -y describen unos comportamientos que dependen de cada ámbito (financiero, profesional o de sanidad, por ejemplo) y de los efectos de contexto. A partir de un cuestionario específico, presentado a una infra muestra de la encuesta del Insee Patrimonio . 1998, que abarca un amplio abanico de ámbitos de la vida, de situaciones y de contextos, y de tipo de riesgos, se propone aquí paradójicamente dar cuenta de esta riqueza de actitudes de cada individuo frente al riesgo mediante un indicador único, meramente . ordinal: a la totalidad de las respuestas hechas por cada encuestado se le hace corresponder un tanteo, . medición sintética presuntamente representativa de todas sus preferencias respecto al riesgo. Varios elementos han permitido averiguar la legitimidad de este enfoque. Si nos basamos en sus propias declaraciones invitándoles a situarse en unas escalas entre 0 (prudente) y 10 (arriesgado), observamos que los encuestados aceptan tomar más riesgos en cuanto a consumo y ocios o a nivel profesional que en cuanto a la salud o a la familia, aunque esas diferencias son mínimas con unas correlaciones de las escalas por ámbito con la escala global superiores en un 0,5. Además el fuerte grado de coherencia interna del tanteo demuestra, ex post, la pertinencia de una medición global pese a la diversidad de las actitudes frente al riesgo de un mismo individuo. Cuando se trata de determinar el perfil tipo de los que se arriesgan más (variable dependiente) o a la inversa de explicar unos comportamientos arriesgados y sobre las opciones patrimoniales, el tanteo es mucho más pertinente que unos indicadores parciales, como por ejemplo la medición convencional de la aversión por el riesgo, obtenida a partir de unas opciones estáticas entre unas loterías que sólo conciernen al ámbito profesional. Según las informaciones proporcionadas por el tanteo, los jóvenes, los solteros, los hombres, las fuertes remuneraciones y los hijos de independientes favorecidos - o de ejecutivos no docentes - están dispuestos a tomar más riesgos que los demás; las personas mayores, en pareja, las mujeres, los menos diplomados, los hijos de padres prudentes, de obreros o de agricultores tienden por lo contrario a arriesgarse menos. Los resultados relacionados con los efectos de la edad y del género son comunes a todos los indicadores - escalas, infra tanteos, medición de la aversión por el riesgo - y compartidos con la mayor parte de los estudios empíricos. [ger] Messung der individuellen Präferenzen gegenüber dem Risiko . Die jüngsten Entwicklungen der Mikroökonomie des Ungewissen, die die vielfältigen und verschiedenen Dimensionen der Verhaltensweisen gegenüber dem Risiko widerspiegeln, führten zu einer Zunahme der individuellen Präferenzparameter (Risikoaversion, Umsicht, Mäßigung, Verlustaversion usw.), um diese zu erklären. Des Gleichen versuchen die experimentellen Untersuchungen oder Feldstudien, diese Vielfalt durch die Unterscheidung verschiedener Risikotypen - kleine oder große Risiken, Gewinn-oder Verlustrisiko, irreversibles oder nicht irreversibles Risiko - zu analysieren, und beschreiben Verhaltensweisen, die vom betreffenden Bereich (beispielsweise finanzieller, beruflicher oder gesundheitlicher Bereich) und von den Effekten des Kontexts abhängig sind. Anhand eines speziellen Fragebogens, der einer Unterstichprobe der Insee-Erhebung Vermögensverhältnisse . des Jahres 1998 vorgelegt wurde und der eine breite Palette von Lebensbereichen, Situationen oder Kontexten und Risikotypen abdeckt, wird paradoxerweise vorgeschlagen, diese Vielfalt an Einstellungen zum Risiko eines jeden Individuums mittels eines einzigen, eines rein . ordinalen Indikators zu analysieren. Jeder Antwort eines jeden Befragten wird ein Score zugeteilt; eine synthetische Messung, die für die Palette dieser Präferenzen gegenüber dem Risiko repräsentativ sein soll. Mit mehreren Elementen konnte die Relevanz dieses Ansatzes überprüft werden. Werden die Befragten aufgefordert, sich selbst auf den Skalen zwischen 0 (umsichtig) und 10 (abenteuerlich) zu positionieren, und verlässt man sich auf ihre eigenen Erklärungen, lässt sich feststellen, dass sie beim Konsum und bei der Freizeit oder auf beruflicher Ebene mehr Risiken zu übernehmen bereit sind als im Hinblick auf die Gesundheit oder die Familie. Die Abweichungen sind aber begrenzt, wobei Korrelationen zwischen den Skalen pro Bereich und der globalen Skala von über 0,5 zu beobachten sind. Insbesondere bescheinigt der hohe Grad der internen Kohärenz des Scores im Nachhinein die Relevanz einer globalen Messung trotz der Vielfalt der Einstellungen gegenüber dem Risiko bei ein und demselben Individuum. Soll das Standardprofil derjenigen, die das größte Risiko eingehen (abhängige Variable), ermittelt oder umgekehrt die risikobehafteten Verhaltensweisen, insbesondere die Entscheidungen im Hinblick auf die Vermögensbildung, erklärt werden, ist der Score viel relevanter als partielle Indikatoren, wie die konventionellere Messung der Risikoaversion, die man anhand statischer Entscheidungen zwischen Lotterien betreffend den beruflichen Bereich erhält. Glaubt man den Informationen des Scores, sind Jugendliche, Ledige, Männer, Bezieher hoher Einkünfte und Kinder von wohlhabenden Selbständigen - oder von Führungskräften, die nicht im Unterrichtswesen tätig sind - zur Übernahme größerer Risiken als die anderen bereit. Dagegen neigen ältere Menschen, Ehepaare, Frauen, weniger qualifizierte Personen, Kinder von umsichtigen Eltern, von Arbeitern oder Landwirten dazu, weniger Risiken auf sich zu nehmen. Die Ergebnisse betreffend die Effekte des Alters und des Geschlechts sind bei allen Indikatoren gleich - Skalen, Unterscores, Messung der Risikoaversion - und gelten für die meisten empirischen Studien. [fre] Mesurer les préférences individuelles à l’égard du risque . Sensibles aux dimensions plurielle et variées des comportements face au risque, les développements récents de la microéconomie de l’incertain multiplient à l’envi le nombre de paramètres individuels de préférence - aversion au risque, prudence, tempérance, aversion à la perte, etc. - pour en rendre compte. De même, les études expérimentales ou de terrain cherchent à cerner cette diversité en distinguant différents types de risques - à petits ou gros enjeux, de gains ou de pertes, aux conséquences irréversibles ou non - et décrivent des comportements qui dépendent du domaine concerné (financier, professionnel ou de la santé, par exemple) et des effets de contexte. À partir d’un questionnaire spécifique, posé à un souséchantillon de l’enquête de l’Insee Patrimoine 1998 et qui balaie un large éventail de domaines de la vie, de situations ou de contextes, et de type de risques, on propose, paradoxalement, de rendre compte de cette richesse des attitudes vis-à-vis du risque de chaque individu par un indicateur unique, purement ordinal: à l’ensemble des réponses apportées par chaque enquêté, on fait correspondre un score, mesure synthétique supposée représentative de la palette de ces préférences à l’égard du risque. Plusieurs éléments ont permis de vérifier le bien fondé de cette approche. Si l’on se fie à leurs propres déclarations en les invitant à se positionner sur des échelles entre 0 (prudent) et 10 (aventureux), on constate que les enquêtés acceptent de prendre davantage de risques en matière de consommation et de loisirs ou sur le plan professionnel que par rapport à la santé ou la famille, mais que les écarts demeurent limités, avec des corré- lations des échelles par domaine avec l’échelle globale supérieures à 0,5. Surtout, le haut degré de cohérence interne du score atteste, ex post, la pertinence d’une mesure globale en dépit de la diversité des attitudes à l’égard du risque pour un même individu. Lorsqu’il s’agit de déterminer le profil-type de ceux qui prennent le plus de risque (variable dépendante) ou, à l’inverse, d’expliquer des comportements risqués, et notamment les choix patrimoniaux, le score s’avère beaucoup plus pertinent que des indicateurs partiels, telle la mesure plus conventionnelle de l’aversion relative pour le risque, obtenue à partir de choix statiques entre des loteries concernant le seul domaine professionnel. Si l’on en croit les informations fournies par le score, les jeunes, les célibataires, les hommes, les hautes rémunérations et les enfants d’indépendants aisés - ou de cadres non enseignants - sont prêts à prendre davantage de risque que les autres; les personnes âgées, en couple, les femmes, les moins diplômés, les enfants de parents prudents, d’ouvriers ou d’agriculteurs ont, au contraire, tendance à en prendre moins. Les résultats relatifs aux effets de l’âge et du genre sont communs à l’ensemble des indicateurs - échelles, sous-scores, mesure de l’aversion relative pour le risque - et partagés par la plupart des études empiriques. [eng] Measuring Individual Time Preferences . Microeconomic theory makes a saver’s choices dependent on the lifecycle of his discount rate, or on the subjective discount rate he uses to anticipate his future gratifications. The higher this rate, the lower the savings level. This time preference, characteristic of the agent’s life expectancy, needs to be differentiated from the parameters that govern his decisions as regards other timeframes: his extent of shorter-run impatience, but also his intergenerational altruism. Just as the discount rate compares a deferred gratification with gratification today, the extent of altruism indicates the relative weight placed on the welfare of one’s children - or the welfare of future generations - compared with one’s own welfare. A specific questionnaire has been put to a sub-sample of the 1998 INSEE Patrimoine survey on personal wealth to evaluate these individual preferences. To avoid the problems encountered by previous measurement attempts, the questionnaire contains the usual choices - between pleasures assumed equivalent on different dates -, but also puts a range of simpler and more concrete questions seeking to better identify what the time preference really represents in terms of decisionmaking period and "life plans”. By covering a large number of areas and situations, we hope to limit context effects and better control the other factors involved in intertemporal choices: interest rates, attitude to risk under a necessarily uncertain future, liquidity constraints, etc. The discount rate, impatience and extents of altruism - family and non-family related - are then evaluated by scores, ordinal measures that summarise the interviewee’s responses to all the questions attributed to each preference. Who is provident - low short-run time preference - impatient or altruistic? The explanatory regressions on the different scores generally produce the expected findings. Time preference appears to be transmitted through the mother. It is lower among seniors, qualified individuals, those in couples and those with children. In effect, most of the interviewees whose time preference is found to have changed consider that they have become more prudent as they have got older. A high level of education is positively correlated with both forms of altruism - family and non-family related. However, short-run impatience, an indicator we knew to be composite, does not depend on household characteristics. The only surprise is that women do not appear to be more provident or even more altruistic than the men as regards their children.

Suggested Citation

  • Luc Arrondel & André Masson & Daniel Verger, 2004. "Mesurer les préférences individuelles à l'égard du risque," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 374(1), pages 53-85.
  • Handle: RePEc:prs:ecstat:estat_0336-1454_2004_num_374_1_7247
    DOI: 10.3406/estat.2004.7247
    Note: DOI:10.3406/estat.2004.7247
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.3406/estat.2004.7247
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.persee.fr/doc/estat_0336-1454_2004_num_374_1_7247
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3406/estat.2004.7247?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bruno Jullien & Bernard Salanie, 2000. "Estimating Preferences under Risk: The Case of Racetrack Bettors," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 108(3), pages 503-530, June.
    2. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    3. Michael Haliassos, 2003. "Stockholding: Recent Lessons from Theory and Computations," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Luigi Guiso & Michael Haliassos & Tullio Jappelli (ed.), Stockholding in Europe, chapter 2, pages 30-49, Palgrave Macmillan.
    4. Arie Kapteyn & Federica Teppa, 2002. "Subjective Measures of Risk Aversion and Portfolio Choice," Working Papers DRU-2802, RAND Corporation.
    5. Kimball, Miles S, 1990. "Precautionary Saving in the Small and in the Large," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 58(1), pages 53-73, January.
    6. Kimball, Miles S, 1993. "Standard Risk Aversion," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 61(3), pages 589-611, May.
    7. Eeckhoudt, Louis & Gollier, Christian & Schlesinger, Harris, 1996. "Changes in Background Risk and Risk-Taking Behavior," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 64(3), pages 683-689, May.
    8. Kachelmeier, Steven J & Shehata, Mohamed, 1992. "Examining Risk Preferences under High Monetary Incentives: Experimental Evidence from the People's Republic of China," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(5), pages 1120-1141, December.
    9. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    10. Luigi Guiso & Monica Paiella, 2008. "Risk Aversion, Wealth, and Background Risk," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 6(6), pages 1109-1150, December.
    11. Elmendorf, Douglas W & Kimball, Miles S, 2000. "Taxation of Labor Income and the Demand for Risky Assets," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 41(3), pages 801-833, August.
    12. Loewenstein, George & Thaler, Richard H, 1989. "Intertemporal Choice," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 3(4), pages 181-193, Fall.
    13. Chris Starmer, 2000. "Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 332-382, June.
    14. Luigi Guiso & Michael Haliassos & Tullio Jappelli (ed.), 2003. "Stockholding in Europe," Palgrave Macmillan Books, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-0-230-50267-3.
    15. Robert B. Barsky & F. Thomas Juster & Miles S. Kimball & Matthew D. Shapiro, 1997. "Preference Parameters and Behavioral Heterogeneity: An Experimental Approach in the Health and Retirement Study," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 537-579.
    16. Milton Friedman & L. J. Savage, 1948. "The Utility Analysis of Choices Involving Risk," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(4), pages 279-279.
    17. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    18. Bodie, Zvi & Merton, Robert C. & Samuelson, William F., 1992. "Labor supply flexibility and portfolio choice in a life cycle model," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 16(3-4), pages 427-449.
    19. Pratt, John W & Zeckhauser, Richard J, 1987. "Proper Risk Aversion," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(1), pages 143-154, January.
    20. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    21. Powell, Melanie & Ansic, David, 1997. "Gender differences in risk behaviour in financial decision-making: An experimental analysis," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 18(6), pages 605-628, November.
    22. Luc Arrondel & André Masson, 1996. "Gestion du risque et comportements patrimoniaux," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 296(1), pages 63-89.
    23. Chew, Soo Hong, 1983. "A Generalization of the Quasilinear Mean with Applications to the Measurement of Income Inequality and Decision Theory Resolving the Allais Paradox," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 51(4), pages 1065-1092, July.
    24. Jianakoplos, Nancy Ammon & Bernasek, Alexandra, 1998. "Are Women More Risk Averse?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 36(4), pages 620-630, October.
    25. Kapteyn, A. & Teppa, F., 2002. "Subjective Measures of Risk Aversion and Portfolio Choice," Discussion Paper 2002-11, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    26. Dreze, Jacques H. & Modigliani, Franco, 1972. "Consumption decisions under uncertainty," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 308-335, December.
    27. Renate Schubert, 1999. "Financial Decision-Making: Are Women Really More Risk-Averse?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(2), pages 381-385, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Carole Treibich, 2015. "Are Survey Risk Aversion Measurements Adequate in a Low Income Context?," Working Papers halshs-01139222, HAL.
    2. Setti Rais Ali & Paul Dourgnon & Lise Rochaix, 2018. "Social Capital or Education: What Matters Most to Cut Time to Diagnosis?," Working Papers halshs-01703170, HAL.
    3. Delprat, G. & Leroux, M.-L. & Michaud, P.-C., 2016. "Evidence on individual preferences for longevity risk," Journal of Pension Economics and Finance, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(2), pages 160-179, April.

    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. Arrondel, L. & Savignac, F., 2009. "Stockholding: Does housing wealth matter?," Working papers 266, Banque de France.
    2. Luc Arrondel & Hector Calvo Pardo & Xisco Oliver, 2007. "Temperant portfolio choice and background risk: evidence from France," PSE Working Papers halshs-00588069, HAL.
    3. Guiso, Luigi & Sodini, Paolo, 2013. "Household Finance: An Emerging Field," Handbook of the Economics of Finance, in: G.M. Constantinides & M. Harris & R. M. Stulz (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Finance, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 1397-1532, Elsevier.
    4. Christian Gollier & James Hammitt & Nicolas Treich, 2013. "Risk and choice: A research saga," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 129-145, October.
    5. Trabelsi, Mohamed Ali, 2006. "Les nouveaux modèles de décision dans le risque et l’incertain : quel apport ? [The new models of decision under risk or uncertainty : What approach?]," MPRA Paper 25442, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Luc Arrondel & André Masson & Daniel Verger, 2004. "De la théorie à une enquête méthodologique originale," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 374(1), pages 21-51.
    7. Antoni Bosch & Joaquim Silvestre, 2003. "Do the Wealthy Risk More Money? An Experimental Comparison," Working Papers 10, Barcelona School of Economics.
    8. repec:dau:papers:123456789/8576 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Zvi Safra & Uzi Segal, 2005. "Are Universal Preferences Possible? Calibration Results for Non-Expected Utility Theories," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 633, Boston College Department of Economics.
    10. Luigi Guiso & Monica Paiella, 2008. "Risk Aversion, Wealth, and Background Risk," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 6(6), pages 1109-1150, December.
    11. Colin Camerer, 1998. "Bounded Rationality in Individual Decision Making," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(2), pages 163-183, September.
    12. Donatella Baiardi & Marco Magnani & Mario Menegatti, 2020. "The theory of precautionary saving: an overview of recent developments," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 513-542, June.
    13. van Rooij, Maarten C.J. & Kool, Clemens J.M. & Prast, Henriette M., 2007. "Risk-return preferences in the pension domain: Are people able to choose?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(3-4), pages 701-722, April.
    14. Liang Zou, 2006. "An Alternative to Prospect Theory," Annals of Economics and Finance, Society for AEF, vol. 7(1), pages 1-28, May.
    15. Aloisio Araujo & Alain Chateauneuf & Juan Pablo Gama & Rodrigo Novinski, 2018. "General Equilibrium With Uncertainty Loving Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(5), pages 1859-1871, September.
    16. Wakker, Peter P. & Zank, Horst, 2002. "A simple preference foundation of cumulative prospect theory with power utility," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(7), pages 1253-1271, July.
    17. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1324-1369 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Trabelsi, Mohamed Ali, 2008. "Les nouveaux modèles de décision dans le risque et l’incertain : quel apport ? [The new models of decision under risk or uncertainty: What approach?]," MPRA Paper 83347, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2008.
    19. Galarza, Francisco, 2009. "Choices under Risk in Rural Peru," MPRA Paper 17708, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Georgalos, Konstantinos & Paya, Ivan & Peel, David A., 2021. "On the contribution of the Markowitz model of utility to explain risky choice in experimental research," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 527-543.
    21. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.
    22. Shi, Xiaojun & Yan, Zhu, 2018. "Urbanization and risk preference in China: A decomposition of self-selection and assimilation effects," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 210-228.

    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:prs:ecstat:estat_0336-1454_2004_num_374_1_7247. 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: Equipe PERSEE (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.persee.fr/collection/estat .

    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.