IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/103088.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

To pay or not to pay: Measuring risk preferences in lab and field

Author

Listed:
  • Brañas-Garza, Pablo
  • Estepa Mohedano, Lorenzo
  • Jorrat, Diego
  • Orozco, Víctor
  • Rascon-Ramirez, Ericka

Abstract

Measuring risk preferences in the field is critical for policy, however, it can be expensive and may generate unequal payoffs due to bad luck. For instance, the commonly used measure of Holt and Laury (2002) relies on a dozen of lottery choices and payments which makes it time consuming and costly, but also raises moral concerns as a result of the unequal payments generated by the lotteries. We propose a short version of the Holt and Laury (2002) which produces in the lab (Spain) the same results as the long HL. Using the short HL in the field (Honduras and Nigeria), we observe that paying or not for the measurement of risk preferences produces the same findings. Our low-cost approach makes the measurement of risk preferences simpler, faster and cheaper in the lab and field.

Suggested Citation

  • Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Estepa Mohedano, Lorenzo & Jorrat, Diego & Orozco, Víctor & Rascon-Ramirez, Ericka, 2020. "To pay or not to pay: Measuring risk preferences in lab and field," MPRA Paper 103088, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:103088
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/103088/1/MPRA_paper_103088.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel A. Ballester, 2018. "Monotone Stochastic Choice Models: The Case of Risk and Time Preferences," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 126(1), pages 74-106.
    2. Wiseman, David B. & Levin, Irwin P., 1996. "Comparing Risky Decision Making Under Conditions of Real and Hypothetical Consequences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 241-250, June.
    3. Paolo Crosetto & Antonio Filippin, 2013. "The “bomb” risk elicitation task," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 31-65, August.
    4. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2005. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects: New Data without Order Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(3), pages 902-912, June.
    5. 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.
    6. Katz, Eliakim & Stark, Oded, 1986. "Labor Migration and Risk Aversion in Less Developed Countries," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(1), pages 134-149, January.
    7. Nathalie Etchart-Vincent & Olivier l’Haridon, 2011. "Monetary incentives in the loss domain and behavior toward risk: An experimental comparison of three reward schemes including real losses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 61-83, February.
    8. Jörg Peters & Jörg Langbein & Gareth Roberts, 2018. "Generalization in the Tropics – Development Policy, Randomized Controlled Trials, and External Validity," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank Group, vol. 33(1), pages 34-64.
    9. Kuhberger, Anton & Schulte-Mecklenbeck, Michael & Perner, Josef, 2002. "Framing decisions: Hypothetical and real," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 1162-1175, November.
    10. 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.
    11. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John A. List & Dana L. Suskind, 2017. "What Can We Learn from Experiments? Understanding the Threats to the Scalability of Experimental Results," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(5), pages 282-286, May.
    12. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel Ángel Ballester & Angelo Gutierrez, 2019. "Random models for the joint treatment of risk and time preferences," Economics Working Papers 1671, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    13. Catherine C. Eckel & Philip J. Grossman, 2008. "Forecasting Risk Attitudes: An Experimental Study Using Actual and Forecast Gamble Choices," Monash Economics Working Papers archive-01, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    14. Weiss, Yoram, 1972. "The Risk Element in Occupational and Educational Choices," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 80(6), pages 1203-1213, Nov.-Dec..
    15. Steffen Andersen & Glenn W. Harrison & Morten I. Lau & E. Elisabet Rutström, 2008. "Eliciting Risk and Time Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 76(3), pages 583-618, May.
    16. Joshua B. Miller & Adam Sanjurjo, 2019. "Surprised by the Hot Hand Fallacy? A Truth in the Law of Small Numbers," Papers 1902.01265, arXiv.org.
    17. Friedman, Bernard, 1974. "Risk Aversion and the Consumer Choice of Health Insurance Option," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 56(2), pages 209-214, May.
    18. Miller, Joshua Benjamin & Sanjurjo, Adam, 2018. "Surprised by the Hot Hand Fallacy? A Truth in the Law of Small Numbers," OSF Preprints sv9x2, Center for Open Science.
    19. Elaine M. Liu, 2013. "Time to Change What to Sow: Risk Preferences and Technology Adoption Decisions of Cotton Farmers in China," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(4), pages 1386-1403, October.
    20. 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.
    21. Joshua B. Miller & Adam Sanjurjo, 2018. "Surprised by the Hot Hand Fallacy? A Truth in the Law of Small Numbers," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(6), pages 2019-2047, November.
    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. Bruns, Selina & Hermann, Daniel & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2022. "Investigating inconsistencies in complex lotteries: The role of cognitive skills of low-numeracy subjects," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    2. Kai Ruggeri & Amma Panin & Milica Vdovic & Bojana Većkalov & Nazeer Abdul-Salaam & Jascha Achterberg & Carla Akil & Jolly Amatya & Kanchan Amatya & Thomas Lind Andersen & Sibele D. Aquino & Arjoon Aru, 2022. "The globalizability of temporal discounting," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 6(10), pages 1386-1397, October.
    3. Pablo Brañas-Garza & Diego Jorrat & Antonio M. Espín & Angel Sánchez, 2023. "Paid and hypothetical time preferences are the same: lab, field and online evidence," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(2), pages 412-434, April.
    4. Lovász, Anna & Bat-Erdene, Boldmaa & Cukrowska-Torzewska, Ewa & Rigó, Mariann & Szabó-Morvai, Ágnes, 2023. "Competition, subjective feedback, and gender gaps in performance," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    5. Alfonso, Antonio & Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Jorrat, Diego & Lomas, Pablo & Prissé, Benjamin & Vasco, Mónica & Vázquez-De Francisco, María J., 2023. "The adventure of running experiments with teenagers," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    6. Estepa-Mohedano, Lorenzo & Espinosa, María Paz, 2023. "Comparing risk elicitation in lotteries with visual or contextual aids," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    7. Thomas Meissner & Xavier Gassmann & Corinne Faure & Joachim Schleich, 2023. "Individual characteristics associated with risk and time preferences: A multi country representative survey," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 66(1), pages 77-107, February.
    8. Alfonso-Costillo, Antonio, 2021. "Taking risks by flying paper airplanes," MPRA Paper 108541, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Kai Ruggeri & Amma Panin & Milica Vdovic & Bojana Većkalov & Nazeer Abdul-Salaam & Jascha Achterberg & Carla Akil & Jolly Amatya & Kanchan Amatya & Thomas Lind Andersen & Sibele D. Aquino & Arjoon Aru, 2022. "The globalizability of temporal discounting," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 6(10), pages 1386-1397, October.
      • Kai Ruggeri & Amma Panin & Milica Vdovic & Bojana Većkalov & Nazeer Abdul-Salaam & Jascha Achterberg & Carla Akil & Jolly Amatya & Kanchan Amatya & Thomas Lind Andersen & Sibele D Aquino & Arjoon Arun, 2022. "The globalizability of temporal discounting," Post-Print halshs-03903193, HAL.
    10. Holden, Stein T. & Tilahun, Mesfin, 2022. "Are risk preferences explaining gender differences in investment behavior?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 101(C).

    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. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:5:p:1290-1313 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Estepa-Mohedano, Lorenzo & Jorrat, Diego & Orozco, Victor & Rascón-Ramírez, Ericka, 2021. "To pay or not to pay: Measuring risk preferences in lab and field," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(5), pages 1290-1313, September.
    3. Antonio FILIPPIN & Paolo CROSETTO, 2014. "A Reconsideration of Gender Differences in Risk Attitudes," Departmental Working Papers 2014-01, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    4. Gary Charness & Nir Chemaya & Dario Trujano-Ochoa, 2023. "Learning your own risk preferences," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 67(1), pages 1-19, August.
    5. Estepa-Mohedano, Lorenzo & Espinosa, María Paz, 2023. "Comparing risk elicitation in lotteries with visual or contextual aids," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    6. Galizzi, Matteo M. & Machado, Sara R. & Miniaci, Raffaele, 2016. "Temporal stability, cross-validity, and external validity of risk preferences measures: experimental evidence from a UK representative sample," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 67554, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Holzmeister, Felix & Stefan, Matthias, 2019. "The Risk Elicitation Puzzle Revisited: Across-Methods (In)consistency?," OSF Preprints pj9u2, Center for Open Science.
    8. Gary Charness & Thomas Garcia & Theo Offerman & Marie Claire Villeval, 2020. "Do measures of risk attitude in the laboratory predict behavior under risk in and outside of the laboratory?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 60(2), pages 99-123, April.
    9. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Imas, Alex, 2013. "Experimental methods: Eliciting risk preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 43-51.
    10. Andrea Hackethal & Michael Kirchler & Christine Laudenbach & Michael Razen & Annika Weber, 2020. "On the role of monetary incentives in risk preference elicitation experiments," Working Papers 2020-29, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    11. Paolo Crosetto & Antonio Filippin, 2013. "The “bomb” risk elicitation task," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 31-65, August.
    12. McAlvanah, Patrick, 2009. "Are people more risk-taking in the presence of the opposite sex?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 136-146, April.
    13. Michele Garagnani, 2023. "The predictive power of risk elicitation tasks," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 67(2), pages 165-192, October.
    14. Felix Holzmeister & Matthias Stefan, 2019. "The risk elicitation puzzle revisited: Across-methods (in)consistency?," Working Papers 2019-19, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    15. Simone Cerroni, 2020. "Eliciting farmers’ subjective probabilities, risk, and uncertainty preferences using contextualized field experiments," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(5), pages 707-724, September.
    16. Kerri Brick & Martine Visser & Justine Burns, 2012. "Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence from South African Fishing Communities," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(1), pages 133-152.
    17. Galarza, Francisco, 2009. "Choices under Risk in Rural Peru," MPRA Paper 17708, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Douadia Bougherara & Lana Friesen & Céline Nauges, 2021. "Risk Taking with Left- and Right-Skewed Lotteries," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 62(1), pages 89-112, February.
    19. 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.
    20. Giuseppe Attanasi & Nikolaos Georgantzís & Valentina Rotondi & Daria Vigani, 2018. "Lottery- and survey-based risk attitudes linked through a multichoice elicitation task," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(3), pages 341-372, May.
    21. Sascha Füllbrunn & Wolfgang J. Luhan, 2015. "Am I my Peer‘s Keeper? Social Responsibility in Financial Decision Making," Ruhr Economic Papers 0551, Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Universität Dortmund, Universität Duisburg-Essen.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Risk preferences; Holt Laury; Field Experiments; Monetary Payoffs; Incentives.;
    All these 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

    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:pra:mprapa:103088. 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.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.