IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/elg/eechap/20035_30.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

A critical perspective on the conceptualization of risk in behavioral and experimental finance

In: Handbook of Experimental Finance

Author

Listed:
  • Felix Holzmeister
  • Christoph Huber
  • Stefan Palan

Abstract

Risk is one of the key aspects in financial decision-making and therefore an integral part of the behavioral economics and finance literature. Focusing on the conceptualization of "risk," which researchers in various fields have addressed from numerous angles, this comment aims to offer a critical perspective on the interactions between risk preferences (a latent trait), risk perceptions (how individuals judge whether something is risky), and risktaking behavior as distinct concepts, and hence to guide future research on individual-level decision-making processes under risk.

Suggested Citation

  • Felix Holzmeister & Christoph Huber & Stefan Palan, 2022. "A critical perspective on the conceptualization of risk in behavioral and experimental finance," Chapters, in: Sascha Füllbrunn & Ernan Haruvy (ed.), Handbook of Experimental Finance, chapter 30, pages 408-413, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    • Handle: RePEc:elg:eechap:20035_30
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.elgaronline.com/view/edcoll/9781800372337/9781800372337.00037.xml
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel A. Ballester, 2018. "Monotone Stochastic Choice Models: The Case of Risk and Time Preferences," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 126(1), pages 74-106.
    2. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    3. Arslan, Ruben C. & Brümmer, Martin & Dohmen, Thomas & Drewelies, Johanna & Hertwig, Ralph & Wagner, Gert G., 2020. "How people know their risk preference," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 10.
    4. Felix Holzmeister & Jürgen Huber & Michael Kirchler & Florian Lindner & Utz Weitzel & Stefan Zeisberger, 2020. "What Drives Risk Perception? A Global Survey with Financial Professionals and Laypeople," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(9), pages 3977-4002, September.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Jianmin Jia & James S. Dyer & John C. Butler, 1999. "Measures of Perceived Risk," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(4), pages 519-532, April.
    8. Elke U. Weber & Richard A. Milliman, 1997. "Perceived Risk Attitudes: Relating Risk Perception to Risky Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(2), pages 123-144, February.
    9. 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.
    10. Lönnqvist, Jan-Erik & Verkasalo, Markku & Walkowitz, Gari & Wichardt, Philipp C., 2015. "Measuring individual risk attitudes in the lab: Task or ask? An empirical comparison," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 254-266.
    11. Andreas Pedroni & Renato Frey & Adrian Bruhin & Gilles Dutilh & Ralph Hertwig & Jörg Rieskamp, 2017. "The risk elicitation puzzle," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 1(11), pages 803-809, November.
    12. Alen Nosić & Martin Weber, 2010. "How Riskily Do I Invest? The Role of Risk Attitudes, Risk Perceptions, and Overconfidence," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 7(3), pages 282-301, September.
    13. Keller, L. Robin & Sarin, Rakesh K. & Weber, Martin, 1986. "Empirical investigation of some properties of the perceived riskiness of gambles," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 114-130, August.
    14. Weber, Elke U. & Anderson, Carolyn J. & Birnbaum, Michael H., 1992. "A theory of perceived risk and attractiveness," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 492-523, August.
    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. Huber, Christoph & Huber, Jürgen & Kirchler, Michael, 2022. "Volatility shocks and investment behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 56-70.
    2. Christoffersen, Jeppe & Holzmeister, Felix & Plenborg, Thomas, 2023. "What is risk to managers?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    3. Matthias Stefan & Martin Holmén & Felix Holzmeister & Michael Kirchler & Erik Wengström, 2022. "You can’t always get what you want—An experiment on finance professionals' decisions for others," Working Papers 2022-02, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.

    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. repec:grz:wpsses:2021-06 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Christoffersen, Jeppe & Holzmeister, Felix & Plenborg, Thomas, 2023. "What is risk to managers?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    3. 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).
    4. Ranganathan, Kavitha & Lejarraga, Tomás, 2021. "Elicitation of risk preferences through satisficing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    5. Felix Holzmeister & Jürgen Huber & Michael Kirchler & Florian Lindner & Utz Weitzel & Stefan Zeisberger, 2020. "What Drives Risk Perception? A Global Survey with Financial Professionals and Laypeople," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(9), pages 3977-4002, September.
    6. Fabien Perez & Guillaume Hollard & Radu Vranceanu, 2021. "How serious is the measurement-error problem in risk-aversion tasks?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 63(3), pages 319-342, December.
    7. Brice Corgnet & Roberto Hernán González, 2023. "On The Appeal Of Complexity," Working Papers 2312, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    8. Huber, Christoph & Huber, Jürgen & Kirchler, Michael, 2021. "Market shocks and professionals’ investment behavior – Evidence from the COVID-19 crash," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    9. 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.
    10. Christine Kaufmann & Martin Weber & Emily Haisley, 2013. "The Role of Experience Sampling and Graphical Displays on One's Investment Risk Appetite," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(2), pages 323-340, July.
    11. Friedman, Daniel & Habib, Sameh & James, Duncan & Williams, Brett, 2022. "Varieties of risk preference elicitation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 58-76.
    12. Franke, Günter & Weber, Martin, 2001. "Heterogeneity of Investors and Asset Pricing in a Risk-Value World," CoFE Discussion Papers 01/08, University of Konstanz, Center of Finance and Econometrics (CoFE).
    13. Fidanoski, Filip & Johnson, Timothy, 2023. "A z-Tree implementation of the Dynamic Experiments for Estimating Preferences [DEEP] method," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 38(C).
    14. Kopsacheilis, Orestis & Goerg, Sebastian J., 2023. "Order Effects in Eliciting Preferences," IZA Discussion Papers 16343, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    15. Caferra, Rocco & Morone, Andrea & Pierno, Donato, 2024. "From Measurements to Measures: Learning Risk Preferences under Different Risk Elicitation Methods," MPRA Paper 121590, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. repec:grz:wpsses:2017-05 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Holzmeister, Felix & Stefan, Matthias, 2019. "The Risk Elicitation Puzzle Revisited: Across-Methods (In)consistency?," OSF Preprints pj9u2, Center for Open Science.
    18. 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.
    19. Alexander Klos & Elke U. Weber & Martin Weber, 2005. "Investment Decisions and Time Horizon: Risk Perception and Risk Behavior in Repeated Gambles," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(12), pages 1777-1790, December.
    20. Balcombe, Kelvin & Fraser, Iain, 2024. "A Note on an Alternative Approach to Experimental Design of Lottery Prospects," MPRA Paper 119743, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    21. 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.
    22. David Johnson & John Barry Ryan, 2020. "Amazon Mechanical Turk workers can provide consistent and economically meaningful data," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 87(1), pages 369-385, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Economics and Finance;

    JEL classification:

    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • G41 - Financial Economics - - Behavioral Finance - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making in Financial Markets

    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:elg:eechap:20035_30. 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: Darrel McCalla (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.e-elgar.com .

    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.