IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/nlsclt/2026_006.html

Decision Imprecision and the Measurement of Preferences in Multiple Price Lists

Author

Listed:
  • Holden, Stein T.

    (Centre for Land Tenure Studies, Norwegian University of Life Sciences)

Abstract

This paper examines how decision imprecision affects the measurement of risk and time preferences in Multiple Price List (MPL) tasks. Using experimental data with alternative elicitation procedures and repeated binary choices, we document systematic relationships between inconsistency in choices and the distribution of elicited switching behavior. We show that lower decision precision compresses switching behavior toward intermediate rows, reducing the prevalence of corner outcomes. In the risk domain, this compression shifts choices relative to the risk-neutral threshold, increasing the likelihood that observations are classified as risk-loving in low-probability environments. Consistent with this, decision precision affects both the level and probability sensitivity of inferred risk premia. In the time domain, lower precision is associated with lower estimated discount rates, implying that less precise individuals appear more patient in elicitation data. Across domains, these results indicate that commonly used measures such as risk premia and discount rates reflect not only underlying preferences but also variation in decision precision and the structure of elicitation tasks. We therefore interpret these measures as reduced-form summaries of switching behavior rather than structural preference parameters. The evidence is based on a large population-based field experiment in a developing country context, providing external validity to recent findings on cognitive imprecision that have primarily been established in smaller laboratory samples.

Suggested Citation

  • Holden, Stein T., 2026. "Decision Imprecision and the Measurement of Preferences in Multiple Price Lists," CLTS Working Papers 6/26, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies.
  • Handle: RePEc:hhs:nlsclt:2026_006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://main-bvxea6i-kdsvgmpf4iwws.eu-5.platformsh.site/sites/default/files/2026-08/CLTS_WP_06_26_full_0.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sommervoll, Dag Einar & Holden, Stein T. & Tione, Sarah, 2026. "Telling mistakes and striking inconsistencies: Numeracy Measures for Risk and Time Elicitation," CLTS Working Papers 5/26, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies.
    2. Holden, Stein T. & Tione, Sarah & Tilahun, Mesfin & Katengeza, Samson, 2025. "Elicitation bias in Multiple Price Lists: A field experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    3. 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.
    4. Benjamin Enke & Thomas Graeber, 2023. "Cognitive Uncertainty," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 138(4), pages 2021-2067.
    5. Ryan Oprea, 2024. "Decisions under Risk Are Decisions under Complexity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 114(12), pages 3789-3811, December.
    6. 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.
    7. Steffen Andersen & Glenn Harrison & Morten Lau & E. Rutström, 2009. "Elicitation using multiple price list formats," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 12(3), pages 365-366, September.
    8. Mel Win Khaw & Ziang Li & Michael Woodford, 2021. "Cognitive Imprecision and Small-Stakes Risk Aversion," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 88(4), pages 1979-2013.
    9. Michael Woodford, 2020. "Modeling Imprecision in Perception, Valuation, and Choice," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 12(1), pages 579-601, 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. Holden, Stein T. & Tione, Sarah & Tilahun, Mesfin & Katengeza, Samson, 2025. "Elicitation bias in Multiple Price Lists: A field experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    2. Ferdinand M. Vieider, 2024. "Decisions Under Uncertainty as Bayesian Inference on Choice Options," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 70(12), pages 9014-9030, December.
    3. Johannes G. Jaspersen & Christian König-Kersting & Marc A. Ragin, 2026. "Prospective reference theory: Experimental evidence and the connection to anchoring," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 72(3), pages 381-413, June.
    4. Jonathan Chapman & Erik Snowberg & Stephanie Wang & Colin Camerer, 2018. "Loss Attitudes in the U.S. Population: Evidence from Dynamically Optimized Sequential Experimentation (DOSE)," NBER Working Papers 25072, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Matthew P. Taylor, 2020. "Liking the long-shot … but just as a friend," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 61(3), pages 245-261, December.
    6. Galarza, Francisco, 2009. "Choices under Risk in Rural Peru," MPRA Paper 17708, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. 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.
    8. Michelle S. Segovia & Marco A. Palma & Jayson L. Lusk & Andreas C. Drichoutis, 2025. "Visual formats in risk preference elicitation: What catches the eye?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 70(3), pages 275-303, June.
    9. Jiakun Zheng & Ling Zhou, 2025. "Too risky to hedge: An experiment on narrow bracketing," Post-Print hal-05063379, HAL.
    10. Francesco Bogliacino & Iván González-Gallo, 2015. "Aspirations, Prospect Theory and entrepreneurship: evidence from Colombia," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 62(3), pages 271-290, September.
    11. Raghavendra Kushawaha & Naresh Kumar Sharma, 2025. "Risk behavior among farmers: examining expected utility and prospect theory approach," Journal of Social and Economic Development, Springer;Institute for Social and Economic Change, vol. 27(1), pages 20-46, April.
    12. Mary Riddel, 2012. "Comparing risk preferences over financial and environmental lotteries," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 135-157, October.
    13. Hans-Martin von Gaudecker & Arthur van Soest & Erik Wengstrom, 2011. "Heterogeneity in Risky Choice Behavior in a Broad Population," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 664-694, April.
    14. Brice Corgnet & Roberto Hernán González, 2023. "On The Appeal Of Complexity," Working Papers 2312, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Etienne (GATE Lyon St-Etienne), Université de Lyon.
    15. Senran Lin, 2026. "Norm-Relevant Messages under Uncertainty," Papers 2604.18044, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2026.
    16. Egor Bronnikov & Elias Tsakas, 2025. "A robust measure of complexity," Papers 2501.09139, arXiv.org.
    17. Jagau, Stephan, 2024. "To Catch a Stag: Identifying payoff- and risk-dominance effects in coordination games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 429-448.
    18. Anna Conte & Peter G Moffatt & Mary Riddel, 2019. "The Multivariate Random Preference Estimatorfor Switching Multiple Price List Data," University of East Anglia School of Economics Working Paper Series 2019-04, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    19. Hans-Martin Gaudecker & Arthur Soest & Erik Wengström, 2012. "Experts in experiments," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 159-190, October.
    20. David Bruner, 2009. "Changing the probability versus changing the reward," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 12(4), pages 367-385, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • 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

    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:hhs:nlsclt:2026_006. 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: Sarah Ephrida Tione (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ioumbno.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.