IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mnh/spaper/2731.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Evaluating lotteries, risks, and risk mitigation programs : a comparison of China and the United States

Author

Listed:
  • Wang, Mei
  • Fischbeck, Paul

Abstract

Two experiments were designed to explore the existence of systematic differences in risk perceptions and risk attitudes between Chinese and U.S. participants. The first experiment involved ranking monetary lotteries using measures of perceived riskiness and WTP. Several simple heuristics were evaluated to predict perceived riskiness and WTP. Using WTP responses, cumulative prospect theory functions were determined for participants from both countries. Compared to their U.S. counterparts, Chinese participants are found to be less risk averse and to have higher within group agreement for each task. The second experiment involved ranking real-world risks and associated risk-mitigation programs using measures of concern and preference, respectively. Conjoint analysis reveals additional cultural differences in the perception and evaluation of multi-attribute risks and risk-mitigation programs. The cross-cultural versus cross-task variation are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Wang, Mei & Fischbeck, Paul, 2004. "Evaluating lotteries, risks, and risk mitigation programs : a comparison of China and the United States," Papers 04-13, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    • Handle: RePEc:mnh:spaper:2731
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://madoc.bib.uni-mannheim.de/2731/1/dp04_13.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John C. Hershey & Howard C. Kunreuther & Paul J. H. Schoemaker, 1982. "Sources of Bias in Assessment Procedures for Utility Functions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(8), pages 936-954, August.
    2. Alderfer, Clayton P & Bierman, Harold, Jr, 1970. "Choices with Risk: Beyond the Mean and Variance," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 43(3), pages 341-353, July.
    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. Ranyard, Rob, 1995. "Reversals of Preference between Compound and Simple Risks: The Role of Editing Heuristics," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 159-175, September.
    5. Harry Markowitz, 1952. "The Utility of Wealth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 60, pages 151-151.
    6. Tversky, Amos & Slovic, Paul & Kahneman, Daniel, 1990. "The Causes of Preference Reversal," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(1), pages 204-217, March.
    7. Payne, John W & Bettman, James R & Schkade, David A, 1999. "Measuring Constructed Preferences: Towards a Building Code," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 243-270, December.
    8. Moshe Levy & Haim Levy, 2013. "Prospect Theory: Much Ado About Nothing?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 7, pages 129-144, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    9. H. Keith Florig & M. Granger Morgan & Kara M. Morgan & Karen E. Jenni & Baruch Fischhoff & Paul S. Fischbeck & Michael L. DeKay, 2001. "A Deliberative Method for Ranking Risks (I): Overview and Test Bed Development," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(5), pages 913-913, October.
    10. Xiaofei Xie & Mei Wang & Liancang Xu, 2003. "What Risks Are Chinese People Concerned About?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 685-695, August.
    11. Tversky, Amos & Thaler, Richard H, 1990. "Anomalies: Preference Reversals," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 4(2), pages 201-211, Spring.
    12. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    13. Jean-Marc Boussard & Michel Petit, 1967. "Representation of Farmers' Behavior under Uncertainty with a Focus-Loss Constraint," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 49(4), pages 869-880.
    14. J.P. Bruce, 1999. "Disaster Loss Mitigation as an Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 4(3), pages 295-306, September.
    15. Peter H. Farquhar, 1984. "State of the Art---Utility Assessment Methods," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(11), pages 1283-1300, November.
    16. Kuhn, Kristine M. & Budescu, David V., 1996. "The Relative Importance of Probabilities, Outcomes, and Vagueness in Hazard Risk Decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 301-317, December.
    17. Fischhoff, Baruch & Welch, Ned & Fredrick, Shane, 1999. "Construal Processes in Preference Assessment," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 139-164, December.
    18. Elke U. Weber & Christopher Hsee, 1998. "Cross-Cultural Differences in Risk Perception, but Cross-Cultural Similarities in Attitudes Towards Perceived Risk," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(9), pages 1205-1217, September.
    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. LiCalzi, Marco & Sorato, Annamaria, 2006. "The Pearson system of utility functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 172(2), pages 560-573, July.
    2. Kavitha Ranganathan, 2018. "Does Global Shapes Of Utility Functions Matter For Investment Decisions?," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(4), pages 341-361, October.
    3. Philip Bromiley, 2009. "A Prospect Theory Model of Resource Allocation," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 6(3), pages 124-138, September.
    4. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten, 2017. "On the applicability of maximum likelihood methods: From experimental to financial data," SAFE Working Paper Series 148, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2017.
    5. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2019. "Taming models of prospect theory in the wild? Estimation of Vlcek and Hens (2011)," SAFE Working Paper Series 146, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2019.
    6. Charles-Cadogan, G., 2021. "Incoherent Preferences," CRETA Online Discussion Paper Series 69, Centre for Research in Economic Theory and its Applications CRETA.
    7. W. Wong & R. Chan, 2008. "Prospect and Markowitz stochastic dominance," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 105-129, January.
    8. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2013. "In search of a preferred preference elicitation method: A test of the internal consistency of choice and matching tasks," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 126-140.
    9. Jacobs Martin, 2016. "Accounting for Changing Tastes: Approaches to Explaining Unstable Individual Preferences," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 67(2), pages 121-183, August.
    10. Levy, Moshe, 2022. "An inter-temporal CAPM based on First order Stochastic Dominance," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 298(2), pages 734-739.
    11. Ding, David K. & Charoenwong, Charlie & Seetoh, Raymond, 2004. "Prospect theory, analyst forecasts, and stock returns," Journal of Multinational Financial Management, Elsevier, vol. 14(4-5), pages 425-442.
    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. 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.
    14. Rosenblatt-Wisch, Rina, 2008. "Loss aversion in aggregate macroeconomic time series," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 52(7), pages 1140-1159, October.
    15. Haim Levy, 2008. "First Degree Stochastic Dominance Violations: Decision Weights and Bounded Rationality," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(528), pages 759-774, April.
    16. James S. Dyer & James E. Smith, 2021. "Innovations in the Science and Practice of Decision Analysis: The Role of Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5364-5378, September.
    17. Ephraim Clark & Zhuo Qiao & Wing-Keung Wong, 2016. "Theories Of Risk: Testing Investor Behavior On The Taiwan Stock And Stock Index Futures Markets," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 54(2), pages 907-924, April.
    18. George Wu & Alex B. Markle, 2008. "An Empirical Test of Gain-Loss Separability in Prospect Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(7), pages 1322-1335, July.
    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. Yves Alarie & Georges Dionne, 2004. "On the Necessity of Using Lottery Qualities," Cahiers de recherche 0415, CIRPEE.

    More about this item

    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:mnh:spaper:2731. 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: Katharina Rautenberg (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sfmande.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.