IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/lui/wpaper/144.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Risk attitude in real decision proBLEMs

Author

Listed:
  • Fabrizio Botti

    () (LUISS Guido Carli)

  • Anna Conte

    () (University of Rome II “Tor Vergata”, University of Rome I “La Sapienza”, and LUISS Guido Carli)

  • Daniela T. Di Cagno

    () (LUISS Guido Carli)

  • Carlo D'Ippoliti

    () (University of Rome I “La Sapienza”, and LUISS Guido Carli)

Abstract

Experimental economics focuses on eliciting preferences, studying individuals one at a time to take into account their heterogeneity. Experiments have the appealing property of collecting enough observations to perform such an analysis. In real word, and in natural experiments, individuals cannot be observed according to experimenters’ needs. We propose a method that aggregates over individuals taking into account their heterogeneity. Using data from a natural experiment, we estimate three models of decision making under risk: Expected Utility, Rank-Dependent Expected Utility and Regret-Rejoice. Our results show that individual-wise analyses can be substituted by pooled approaches without losing information about individual heterogeneity.

Suggested Citation

  • Fabrizio Botti & Anna Conte & Daniela T. Di Cagno & Carlo D'Ippoliti, "undated". "Risk attitude in real decision proBLEMs," Quaderni DEF 144, Dipartimento di Economia e Finanza, LUISS Guido Carli.
  • Handle: RePEc:lui:wpaper:144
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://static.luiss.it/RePEc/pdf/q144.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Loomes, Graham & Moffatt, Peter G & Sugden, Robert, 2002. "A Microeconometric Test of Alternative Stochastic Theories of Risky Choice," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 103-130, March.
    2. Glenn W. Harrison & John A. List, 2004. "Field Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1009-1055, December.
    3. Thierry Post & Martijn J. van den Assem & Guido Baltussen & Richard H. Thaler, 2008. "Deal or No Deal? Decision Making under Risk in a Large-Payoff Game Show," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(1), pages 38-71, March.
    4. Glenn W. Harrison & Morten I. Lau & E. Elisabet Rutström, 2007. "Estimating Risk Attitudes in Denmark: A Field Experiment," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 109(2), pages 341-368, June.
    5. Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 1982. "Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice under Uncertainty," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(368), pages 805-824, December.
    6. Roger Hartley & Gauthier Lanot & Ian Walker, 2014. "Who Really Wants To Be A Millionaire? Estimates Of Risk Aversion From Gameshow Data," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(6), pages 861-879, September.
    7. Nicolas de Roos & Yianis Sarafidis, 2010. "Decision making under risk in Deal or No Deal," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(6), pages 987-1027.
    8. Matthew Rabin., 2000. "Diminishing Marginal Utility of Wealth Cannot Explain Risk Aversion," Economics Working Papers E00-287, University of California at Berkeley.
    9. Peter Moffatt & Simon Peters, 2001. "Testing for the Presence of a Tremble in Economic Experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 4(3), pages 221-228, December.
    10. 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.
    11. Metrick, Andrew, 1995. "A Natural Experiment in "Jeopardy!"," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(1), pages 240-253, March.
    12. Connel Fullenkamp & Rafael Tenorio & Robert Battalio, 2003. "Assessing Individual Risk Attitudes Using Field Data From Lottery Games," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 85(1), pages 218-226, February.
    13. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, Fall.
    14. Robert Gertner, 1993. "Game Shows and Economic Behavior: Risk-Taking on "Card Sharks"," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 108(2), pages 507-521.
    15. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Publishing House "SINERGIA PRESS", vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
    16. Renate Schubert, 1999. "Financial Decision-Making: Are Women Really More Risk-Averse?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(2), pages 381-385, May.
    17. Friend, Irwin & Blume, Marshall E, 1975. "The Demand for Risky Assets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 65(5), pages 900-922, 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. Wright, Joshua, 2017. "To what extent does income predict an individual’s risk profile in the UK (2012- 2014)," MPRA Paper 80757, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Nicolas de Roos & Yianis Sarafidis, 2010. "Decision making under risk in Deal or No Deal," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(6), pages 987-1027.
    3. Anna Conte & Peter G. Moffatt, 2009. "Òthe Pluralism Of Fairness Idealsó: A Comment," Quaderni DEF 162, Dipartimento di Economia e Finanza, LUISS Guido Carli.
    4. Anna Conte & Peter Moffatt, 2014. "The econometric modelling of social preferences," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 76(1), pages 119-145, January.
    5. Anna Conte & Peter G. Moffatt & Fabrizio Botti & Daniela T. Di Cagno & Carlo D’Ippoliti, 2012. "A test of the rational expectations hypothesis using data from a natural experiment," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(35), pages 4661-4678, December.
    6. Botti, Fabrizio & Conte, Anna & Di Cagno, Daniela & D'Ippoliti, Carlo, 2009. "Lab and framed lab versus natural experiments: Evidence from a risky choice experiment," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 282-295, December.
    7. Mehmet Burak Kahyaoglu & Ozgur Ican, 2017. "Risk Aversion and Emotions in DoND," International Journal of Economics and Finance, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 9(1), pages 32-46, January.
    8. Gigi Foster & Paul Frijters & Markus Schaffner & Benno Torgler, 2013. "Expectation Formation in an Evolving Game of Uncertainty: Theory and New Experimental Evidence," QuBE Working Papers 022, QUT Business School.
    9. Conte, Anna & Hey, John D. & Moffatt, Peter G., 2011. "Mixture models of choice under risk," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 162(1), pages 79-88, May.
    10. Blavatskyy, Pavlo R., 2012. "Utility of a quarter-million," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 117(3), pages 650-653.
    11. Franz Buscha & Anna Conte, 2014. "The Impact of Truancy on Educational Attainment during Compulsory Schooling: a Bivariate Ordered Probit Estimator with Mixed Effects," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 82(1), pages 103-127, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Panel Data; Unobserved heterogeneity; Choice under risk;

    JEL classification:

    • C15 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Statistical Simulation Methods: General
    • C23 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Models with Panel Data; Spatio-temporal Models
    • C25 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions; Probabilities
    • 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:lui:wpaper:144. 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: (Daniela Di Cagno). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/deluiit.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.