IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea06/21343.html

Risk Preferences, Perceptions and Systematic Biases

Author

Listed:
  • Langrock, Ines
  • Hurley, Terrance M.

Abstract

Many decisions we face are characterized by risk or uncertainty we must make choices prior to knowing the outcome. However, we often know the potential outcomes and even have some idea regarding the likelihood of each. While there are similarities in how people respond to risky decisions, there are also differences related to factors like gender (e.g. Levin et al., 1998) and culture (e.g., Kleinhesselink and Rossa, 1991; Weber et al., 1998). Understanding these similarities and differences can help our understanding of a range of economic phenomena. For example, why does entrepreneurship flourish in some countries while it stagnates in others? Risk perceptions and risk preferences are widely recognized by economist as the major factors influencing risky behavior. Risk perceptions characterize the likelihood of chance outcomes and are usually framed in terms of subjective probabilities. Risk preferences rank outcomes based on individual wants. An understanding of how to use public policy to positively influence risky behavior requires understanding to what extent differences in risky behavior are attributable to differences in risk perceptions versus differences in risk preferences. The purpose of this project is to develop a novel experimental protocol for measuring individual differences in risk perceptions and risk preferences. This experimental protocol will then be used to explore how individual differences in subjective probabilities and risk preferences relate to objective probabilities, demographic characteristics, wealth, and information. The experimental protocol consists of three tasks. Firstly, subjects will read a general interest news article. Secondly, subjects will be asked to complete a survey. The survey will ask general demographic questions (e.g. age, gender, and family background). It will also ask 20 questions designed to elicit cultural information based on Geert Hofstede (2001). Thirdly, subjects will be asked how much they are willing to pay to play a more favorable lottery. The question will be repeated with 30 different lottery combinations, which will vary in terms of how a favorable outcome is determined (e.g. drawing poker chips as illustrated in the example or randomly choosing of specific word from the general interest news article) and the scale of rewards.

Suggested Citation

  • Langrock, Ines & Hurley, Terrance M., 2006. "Risk Preferences, Perceptions and Systematic Biases," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21343, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea06:21343
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.21343
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/21343/files/sp06la09.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.21343?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. Chesley, Gr, 1978. "Subjective-Probability Elicitation Techniques - Performance Comparison," Journal of Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(2), pages 225-241.
    2. Terrance Hurley & Jason Shogren, 2005. "An Experimental Comparison of Induced and Elicited Beliefs," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 169-188, January.
    3. Terrell, Dek, 1996. "Incorporating Monotonicity and Concavity Conditions in Flexible Functional Forms," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(2), pages 179-194, March-Apr.
    4. Fishburn, Peter C, 1978. "On Handa's "New Theory of Cardinal Utility" and the Maximization of Expected Return," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 86(2), pages 321-324, April.
    5. Hans P. Binswanger, 1980. "Attitudes Toward Risk: Experimental Measurement in Rural India," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 62(3), pages 395-407.
    6. Chambers,Robert G. & Quiggin,John, 2000. "Uncertainty, Production, Choice, and Agency," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521622448, January.
    7. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    8. Jayson L. Lusk & Keith H. Coble, 2005. "Risk Perceptions, Risk Preference, and Acceptance of Risky Food," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 393-405.
    9. 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..
    10. 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.
    11. Norris, Patricia E. & Kramer, Randall A., 1990. "The Elicitation of Subjective Probabilities with Applications in Agricultural Economics," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 58(02-03), pages 1-21, December.
    12. Joop Hartog & Ada Ferrer‐i‐Carbonell & Nicole Jonker, 2002. "Linking Measured Risk Aversion to Individual Characteristics," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(1), pages 3-26.
    13. Battalio, Raymond C & Kagel, John H & Jiranyakul, Komain, 1990. "Testing between Alternative Models of Choice under Uncertainty: Some Initial Results," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 25-50, March.
    14. Tversky, Amos & Thaler, Richard H, 1990. "Anomalies: Preference Reversals," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 4(2), pages 201-211, Spring.
    15. William Vickrey, 1961. "Counterspeculation, Auctions, And Competitive Sealed Tenders," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 16(1), pages 8-37, March.
    16. Robert G. Nelson & David A. Bessler, 1989. "Subjective Probabilities and Scoring Rules: Experimental Evidence," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 71(2), pages 363-369.
    17. Starmer, Chris & Sugden, Robert, 1991. "Does the Random-Lottery Incentive System Elicit True Preferences? An Experimental Investigation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(4), pages 971-978, September.
    18. Elke U. Weber & Christopher Hsee, 1998. "Cross-Cultural Differences in Risk Perception, but Cross-Cultural Similarities in Attitudes Towards Perceived Risk," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(9), pages 1205-1217, September.
    19. Peter Wakker & Daniel Deneffe, 1996. "Eliciting von Neumann-Morgenstern Utilities When Probabilities Are Distorted or Unknown," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(8), pages 1131-1150, August.
    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. repec:osf:osfxxx:pj9u2_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Holzmeister, Felix & Stefan, Matthias, 2019. "The Risk Elicitation Puzzle Revisited: Across-Methods (In)consistency?," OSF Preprints pj9u2, Center for Open Science.
    3. Felix Holzmeister & Matthias Stefan, 2019. "The risk elicitation puzzle revisited: Across-methods (in)consistency?," Working Papers 2019-19, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Mathieu Lefebvre & Ferdinand Vieider & Marie Villeval, 2011. "The ratio bias phenomenon: fact or artifact?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(4), pages 615-641, October.
    7. David A. Peel & Davind Law, 2009. "An Explanation of Optimal Each-Way Bets based on Non-Expected Utility Theory," Journal of Gambling Business and Economics, University of Buckingham Press, vol. 3(2), pages 15-35, September.
    8. 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.
    9. Paolo Crosetto & Antonio Filippin, 2013. "The “bomb” risk elicitation task," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 31-65, August.
    10. Drichoutis, Andreas & Lusk, Jayson, 2012. "Risk preference elicitation without the confounding effect of probability weighting," MPRA Paper 37762, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Susan K. Laury & Charles A. Holt, 2005. "Further Reflections on Prospect Theory," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2006-23, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    12. Paweł Kuśmierczyk & Radosław Kurach & Marek Kośny, 2025. "Measuring risk attitude: the results of the combined experimental and survey research," DECISION: Official Journal of the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, Springer;Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, vol. 52(3), pages 333-354, September.
    13. Adam Booij & Bernard Praag & Gijs Kuilen, 2010. "A parametric analysis of prospect theory’s functionals for the general population," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 115-148, February.
    14. D. A. Peel & Jie Zhang & D. Law, 2008. "The Markowitz model of utility supplemented with a small degree of probability distortion as an explanation of outcomes of Allais experiments over large and small payoffs and gambling on unlikely outc," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(1), pages 17-26.
    15. Bartczak, Anna & Chilton, Susan & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2015. "Wildfires in Poland: The impact of risk preferences and loss aversion on environmental choices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 300-309.
    16. Antoni Bosch-Domènech & Joaquim Silvestre, 2003. "Do the eealthy risk more money? An experimental comparison," Economics Working Papers 692, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised Jan 2005.
    17. David Peel & David Law, 2009. "A More General Non‐expected Utility Model as an Explanation of Gambling Outcomes for Individuals and Markets," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 76(302), pages 251-263, April.
    18. Satakhun Kosavinta & Donyaprueth Krairit & Do Ba Khang, 2017. "Decision making in the pre-development stage of residential development," Journal of Property Investment & Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 35(2), pages 160-183, March.
    19. Jie Zhang & Ivan Paya & David Peel, 2010. "An Empirical Analysis of Choices Between Gambles of Children and Adults in China," Journal of Gambling Business and Economics, University of Buckingham Press, vol. 4(1), pages 1-18, March.
    20. Booij, Adam S. & van de Kuilen, Gijs, 2009. "A parameter-free analysis of the utility of money for the general population under prospect theory," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 651-666, August.
    21. David M. Bruner, 2017. "Does decision error decrease with risk aversion?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(1), pages 259-273, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    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:ags:aaea06:21343. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.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.