IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ebg/heccah/1042.html

Detecting Heterogeneous Risk Attitudes with Mixed Gambles

Author

Listed:
  • Astebro , Thomas

  • Santos-Pinto , Luís

Abstract

The authors propose a task for eliciting attitudes towards risk that is close to real world risky decisions which typically involve gains and losses. The task consists of accepting or rejecting gambles that provide a gain with probability p and a loss with probability 1 p. The authors employ finite mixture models to uncover heterogeneity in risk preferences and find that (i) behavior is heterogeneous, with slightly less than one half of the subjects behaving as expected utility maximizers, (ii) for the others, reference-dependent models perform better than those where subjects derive utility from final outcomes, (iii) models with sign dependent decision weights perform better than those without, and (iv) there is no evidence for loss aversion. The procedure is sufficiently simple so that it can be easily used in field or lab experiments where risk elicitation is not the main experiment.

Suggested Citation

  • Astebro , Thomas & Santos-Pinto , Luís, 2014. "Detecting Heterogeneous Risk Attitudes with Mixed Gambles," HEC Research Papers Series 1042, HEC Paris.
    • Handle: RePEc:ebg:heccah:1042
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2125956
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Amedeo Piolatto & Matthew D. Rablen, 2017. "Prospect theory and tax evasion: a reconsideration of the Yitzhaki puzzle," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 82(4), pages 543-565, April.
    2. Inigo Iturbe-Ormaetxe & Giovanni Ponti & Josefa Tomás, 2015. "Some (Mis)facts about Myopic Loss Aversion," Working Papers CESARE 6/2015, Dipartimento di Economia e Finanza, LUISS Guido Carli.
    3. Engel, Christoph, 2020. "Estimating heterogeneous reactions to experimental treatments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 124-147.
    4. Adrian Bruhin & Maha Manai & Luís Santos-Pinto, 2022. "Risk and rationality: The relative importance of probability weighting and choice set dependence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 65(2), pages 139-184, October.
    5. Iturbe-Ormaetxe, Iñigo & Ponti, Giovanni & Tomás, Josefa, 2019. "Is it myopia or loss aversion? A study on investment game experiments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 36-40.
    6. Adrian Bruhin & Maha Manai & Luis Santos-Pinto, 2019. "Risk and Rationality:The Relative Importance of Probability Weighting and Choice Set Dependence," Cahiers de Recherches Economiques du Département d'économie 19.01new, Université de Lausanne, Faculté des HEC, Département d’économie.
    7. Salter, Ammon & Salandra, Rossella & Walker, James, 2017. "Exploring preferences for impact versus publications among UK business and management academics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(10), pages 1769-1782.
    8. Bruhin, Adrian & Janizzi, Kelly & Thöni, Christian, 2020. "Uncovering the heterogeneity behind cross-cultural variation in antisocial punishment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 291-308.
    9. Anna Dodonova, 2022. "Risk Aversion, Managerial Reputation, and Debt–Equity Conflict," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-10, March.
    10. Anat Bracha, 2016. "Investment decisions and negative interest rates," Working Papers 16-23, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk 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:ebg:heccah:1042. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Antoine Haldemann The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Antoine Haldemann to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/hecpafr.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.