IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Comprehension and risk elicitation in the field: Evidence from rural Senegal

  • Charness, Gary
  • Viceisza, Angelino

In the past decade, it has become increasingly common to use simple laboratory games and decision tasks as a device for measuring both the preferences and understanding of rural populations in the developing world. This is vitally important for policy implementation in a variety of areas. In this paper, we report the results observed using three distinct risk elicitation mechanisms, using samples drawn from the rural population in Senegal, West Africa. Whatever the intellectual merits of a particular elicitation strategy, there is little value in performing such tests if the respondents do not understand the questions involved. We test the understanding of and the level of meaningful responses to the typical Holt-Laury task, to a simple binary mechanism pioneered by Gneezy and Potters in 1997 and adapted by Charness and Gneezy in 2010, and to a nonincentivized willingness-to-risk scale à la Dohmen et al. We find a disturbingly low level of understanding with the Holt-Laury task and an unlikely-to-be-accurate pattern with the willingness-to-risk question. On the other hand, the simple binary mechanism produces results that closely match the patterns found in previous work, although the levels of risk-taking are lower than in previous studies. Our study is a cautionary note against utilizing either sophisticated risk-elicitation mechanisms at the possible cost of seriously diminished levels of comprehension or nonincentivized questions in the rural developing world.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ifpridp01135.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) in its series IFPRI discussion papers with number 1135.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 2011
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:fpr:ifprid:1135
Contact details of provider: Postal:
2033 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006

Phone: 202-862-5600
Fax: 202-467-4439
Web page: http://www.ifpri.org/
Email:


More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Xavier Gin� & Pamela Jakiela & Dean Karlan & Jonathan Morduch, 2010. "Microfinance Games," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 2(3), pages 60-95, July.
  2. Charles Towe & Glenn Harrison & John List, 2004. "Naturally occurring preferences and exogenous laboratory experiments: A case study of risk aversion," Framed Field Experiments 00155, The Field Experiments Website.
  3. Frank Heinemann & Rosemarie Nagel & Peter Ockenfels, 2004. "Measuring strategic uncertainty in coordination games," Economics Working Papers 804, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
  4. Laborde Debucquet, David & Martin, Will & van der Mensbrugghe, Dominique, 2011. "Measuring the impacts of global trade reform with optimal aggregators of distortions:," IFPRI discussion papers 1123, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
  5. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde & Jürgen Schupp & Gert G. Wagner, 2011. "Individual Risk Attitudes: Measurement, Determinants, And Behavioral Consequences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 522-550, 06.
  6. Hill, Ruth Vargas & Maruyama, Eduardo & Viceisza, Angelino, 2010. "Breaking the norm: An empirical investigation into the unraveling of good behavior," IFPRI discussion papers 948, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
  7. Abigail Barr & Orazio Attanasio, 2009. "Risk Pooling, Risk Preferences, and Social Networks," Economics Series Working Papers CSAE WPS/2009-20, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
  8. Michael S. Haigh & John A. List, 2005. "Do Professional Traders Exhibit Myopic Loss Aversion? An Experimental Analysis," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 60(1), pages 523-534, 02.
  9. Sarah Jacobson & Ragan Petrie, 2009. "Learning from mistakes: What do inconsistent choices over risk tell us?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 143-158, April.
  10. repec:dgr:kubcen:200432 is not listed on IDEAS
  11. Glenn Harrison & John List, 2004. "Field experiments," Artefactual Field Experiments 00058, The Field Experiments Website.
  12. Galarza, Francisco B., 2009. "Choices under Risk in Rural Peru," Staff Paper Series 542, University of Wisconsin, Agricultural and Applied Economics.
  13. Tomomi Tanaka & Colin F. Camerer & Quang Nguyen, 2010. "Risk and Time Preferences: Linking Experimental and Household Survey Data from Vietnam," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(1), pages 557-71, March.
  14. Bellemare, Charles & Krause, Michaela & Kroger, Sabine & Zhang, Chendi, 2005. "Myopic loss aversion: Information feedback vs. investment flexibility," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 87(3), pages 319-324, June.
  15. Stephan Meier & Charles Sprenger, 2010. "Present-Biased Preferences and Credit Card Borrowing," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 2(1), pages 193-210, January.
  16. Uri Gneezy & Jan Potters, 1997. "An Experiment on Risk Taking and Evaluation Periods," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 112(2), pages 631-645.
  17. Uri Gneezy & Kenneth L. Leonard & John A. List, 2009. "Gender Differences in Competition: Evidence From a Matrilineal and a Patriarchal Society," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(5), pages 1637-1664, 09.
  18. repec:feb:framed:0074 is not listed on IDEAS
  19. Glendenning, Claire J. & Asenso-Okyere, Kwadwo & Babu, Suresh C., 2011. "Evaluation of value-added agricultural advisory services: Case study of agriclinics in Southern India," IFPRI discussion papers 1125, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
  20. GlennW. Harrison & StevenJ. Humphrey & Arjan Verschoor, 2010. "Choice under Uncertainty: Evidence from Ethiopia, India and Uganda," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 120(543), pages 80-104, 03.
  21. Ertac, Seda & Gurdal, Mehmet Y., 2012. "Deciding to decide: Gender, leadership and risk-taking in groups," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 24-30.
  22. Viceisza, Angelino C.G., 2012. "Treating the field as a lab: A basic guide to conducting economics," Food security in practice technical guide series 7, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
  23. Morley, Samuel & Piñeiro, Valeria & Robinson, Sherman, 2011. "External shocks and policy alternatives in small open economies: The case of El Salvador," IFPRI discussion papers 1134, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
  24. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri, 2003. "Portfolio Choice and Risk Attitudes: An Experiment," University of California at Santa Barbara, Economics Working Paper Series qt7vz7w609, Department of Economics, UC Santa Barbara.
  25. Engle Warnick James C. & Escobal Javier & Laszlo Sonia C., 2011. "Ambiguity Aversion and Portfolio Choice in Small-Scale Peruvian Farming," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 11(1), pages 1-56, November.
  26. Glenn W. Harrison, 2011. "Experimental Methods and the Welfare Evaluation of Policy Lotteries," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2011-08, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
  27. repec:feb:artefa:0092 is not listed on IDEAS
  28. Gong, Binglin & Yang, Chun-Lei, 2012. "Gender differences in risk attitudes: Field experiments on the matrilineal Mosuo and the patriarchal Yi," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 59-65.
  29. Gary Charness & Garance Genicot, 2009. "Informal Risk Sharing in an Infinite-Horizon Experiment," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(537), pages 796-825, 04.
  30. Nava Ashraf, 2009. "Spousal Control and Intra-household Decision Making: An Experimental Study in the Philippines," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(4), pages 1245-77, September.
  31. Chetan Dave & Catherine Eckel & Cathleen Johnson & Christian Rojas, 2010. "Eliciting risk preferences: When is simple better?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 219-243, December.
  32. Gneezy, U. & Potters, J.J.M., 1996. "An experiment on risk taking and evaluation periods," Discussion Paper 1996-61, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fpr:ifprid:1135. 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: ()

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.