IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/chu/wpaper/10-17.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Personality and the Consistency of Risk Taking Behavior: Experimental Evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Cary Deck

    () (University of Arkansas and Economic Science Institute)

  • Jungmin Lee

    (Florida International University)

  • Javier Reyes

    (University of Arkansas)

Abstract

Researchers have found that an individual’s risk attitude is not stable across elicitation methods. Results reported by Deck et al. (2009) suggest that personality may help explain the apparent inconsistency, offering support to Borghans et al.’s (2008) argument that economists should consider a multi-domain approach to measuring risk attitudes. This paper uses laboratory methods to compare risk attitudes as measured by the Holt and Laury (2002) procedure under two different frames. We find that, as in Deck et al. (2009), one’s willingness to take financial risks (as measured by Weber et al. 2002) significantly affects behavior; however the effect is significantly greater when the task is framed as a financial decision. This paper also asks whether personality can explain the well documented behavioral difference between first price and Dutch auctions. While one’s gambling attitude (as measured by Weber et al. 2002) affects bidding behavior, it does not do so differentially between auction formats.

Suggested Citation

  • Cary Deck & Jungmin Lee & Javier Reyes, 2010. "Personality and the Consistency of Risk Taking Behavior: Experimental Evidence," Working Papers 10-17, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
  • Handle: RePEc:chu:wpaper:10-17
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.chapman.edu/ESI/wp/Deck_PersonalityConsistencyRiskTaking.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul J. H. Schoemaker, 1990. "Are Risk-Attitudes Related Across Domains and Response Modes?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(12), pages 1451-1463, December.
    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. Antonio Filippin & Paolo Crosetto, 2016. "A Reconsideration of Gender Differences in Risk Attitudes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(11), pages 3138-3160, November.
    2. repec:mth:jas888:v:6:y:2018:i:1:p:116-130 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. 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.
    4. Jana Cahlíková & Lubomír Cingl, 2017. "Risk preferences under acute stress," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(1), pages 209-236, March.
    5. Dennis Barber, 2015. "An experimental analysis of risk and entrepreneurial attitudes of university students in the USA and Brazil," Journal of International Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 370-389, December.
    6. Antonio FILIPPIN & Paolo CROSETTO, 2014. "A Reconsideration of Gender Differences in Risk Attitudes," Departmental Working Papers 2014-01, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.

    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. Brown Kruse, Jamie & Thompson, Mark A., 2001. "A comparison of salient rewards in experiments: money and class points," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 113-117, December.
    2. Manel Baucells & Cristina Rata, 2006. "A Survey Study of Factors Influencing Risk-Taking Behavior in Real-World Decisions Under Uncertainty," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 163-176, September.
    3. Nina Veflen & Joachim Scholderer & Solveig Langsrud, 2020. "Situated Food Safety Risk and the Influence of Social Norms," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(5), pages 1092-1110, May.
    4. Humaira Mumtaz & Iqbal Javed & Allah Bakhsh, 2019. "Impact of Psychological Consequences on Poverty: An Evidence from Pakistan," Journal of Economic Impact, Journal of Economic Impact, vol. 1(3), pages 70-79.
    5. Bouchouicha, Ranoua & Martinsson, Peter & Medhin, Haileselassie & Vieider, Ferdinand M., 2017. "Stake effects on ambiguity attitudes for gains and losses," EconStor Open Access Articles, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, pages 19-35.
    6. 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.
    7. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & l’Haridon, Olivier & Pinto, Jose Luis, 2016. "An elicitation of utility for quality of life under prospect theory," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 121-134.
    8. Yitong Wang & Tianjun Feng & L. Keller, 2013. "A further exploration of the uncertainty effect," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 291-310, December.
    9. Ola Andersson & Håkan J. Holm & Jean-Robert Tyran & Erik Wengström, 2016. "Deciding for Others Reduces Loss Aversion," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(1), pages 29-36, January.
    10. Nathalie Etchart-Vincent & Olivier l’Haridon, 2011. "Monetary incentives in the loss domain and behavior toward risk: An experimental comparison of three reward schemes including real losses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 61-83, February.
    11. Luis C. Dias & Rudolf Vetschera, 2019. "Multiple local optima in Zeuthen–Hicks bargaining: an analysis of different preference models," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 7(1), pages 33-53, May.
    12. Peter Brooks & Simon Peters & Horst Zank, 2014. "Risk behavior for gain, loss, and mixed prospects," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(2), pages 153-182, August.
    13. Jonathan J. Rolison & Yaniv Hanoch & Stacey Wood & Pi-Ju Liu, 2014. "Risk-Taking Differences Across the Adult Life Span: A Question of Age and Domain," Journals of Gerontology: Series B, Gerontological Society of America, vol. 69(6), pages 870-880.
    14. Susara Johanna Ferreira, 2019. "Is financial risk tolerance influenced by personality traits?," Proceedings of Economics and Finance Conferences 9511451, International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences.
    15. Santosh Anagol & Vimal Balasubramaniam & Tarun Ramadorai, 2018. "Endowment Effects in the Field: Evidence from India’s IPO Lotteries," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 85(4), pages 1971-2004.
    16. Jorge Hernández-Pérez & Salvador Cruz Rambaud & Tomás Lorenzana de la Varga, 2019. "Economic situation, the key to understanding the links between CEOs’ personal traits and the financial structure of large private companies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-15, July.
    17. Brunette, Marielle & Jacob, Julien, 2019. "Risk aversion, prudence and temperance: An experiment in gain and loss," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 174-189.
    18. Manel Baucells & Antonio Villasís, 2010. "Stability of risk preferences and the reflection effect of prospect theory," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 193-211, February.
    19. Adam Oliver, 2018. "Your money and your life: Risk attitudes over gains and losses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 57(1), pages 29-50, August.
    20. Eyal Ert & Ido Erev, 2010. "On the Descriptive Value of Loss Aversion in Decisions under Risk," Harvard Business School Working Papers 10-056, Harvard Business School.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Risk Attitudes; Personality; Auctions; Framing Effects; Laboratory Experiments;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C9 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments
    • D4 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design
    • D8 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:chu:wpaper:10-17. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Megan Luetje). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/esichus.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.