IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ver/wpaper/10-2014.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Risk preferences and the role of emotions

Author

Listed:
  • Anna Conte

    () (University of Westminster)

  • Maria Vittoria Levati

    () (Department of Economics (University of Verona))

  • Chiara Nardi

    () (Department of Economics (University of Verona))

Abstract

There is a large volume of research showing that emotions have relevant effects on decision†making. We contribute to this literature by experimentally investigating the impact of four specific emotional states—joviality, sadness, fear and anger—on risk attitudes. In order to do so, we fit two models of behaviour under risk: the expected utility model and the rank dependent expected utility model, assuming several functional forms of the weighting function. Our results indicate that all emotional states mitigate risk aversion. Furthermore, we show that there are some differences across gender and participants’ experience in laboratory experiments.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Anna Conte & Maria Vittoria Levati & Chiara Nardi, 2014. "Risk preferences and the role of emotions," Working Papers 10/2014, University of Verona, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ver:wpaper:10/2014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dse.univr.it/home/workingpapers/wp2014n10.pdf
    File Function: First version
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Diecidue, Enrico & Wakker, Peter P, 2001. "On the Intuition of Rank-Dependent Utility," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 281-298, November.
    2. Camerer, Colin F & Hogarth, Robin M, 1999. "The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 7-42, December.
    3. Jamison, Julian & Karlan, Dean & Schechter, Laura, 2008. "To deceive or not to deceive: The effect of deception on behavior in future laboratory experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 68(3-4), pages 477-488, December.
    4. 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, June.
    5. 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.
    6. Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2013. "Eliciting risk and time preferences under induced mood states," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 18-27.
    7. van Winden, Frans & Krawczyk, Michal & Hopfensitz, Astrid, 2011. "Investment, resolution of risk, and the role of affect," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 918-939.
    8. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    9. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    10. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
    11. George Loewenstein, 2000. "Emotions in Economic Theory and Economic Behavior," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(2), pages 426-432, May.
    12. John Hey, 2001. "Does Repetition Improve Consistency?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 4(1), pages 5-54, June.
    13. Paul J. Healy & Yaron Azrieli & Christopher P. Chambers, 2016. "Incentives in Experiments: A Theoretical Analysis," Working Papers 16-03, Ohio State University, Department of Economics.
    14. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Imas, Alex, 2013. "Experimental methods: Eliciting risk preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 43-51.
    15. Rachel Croson & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Gender Differences in Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 448-474, June.
    16. Friedman,Daniel & Sunder,Shyam, 1994. "Experimental Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521456821, Fall.
    17. John E. Grable & Michael J. Roszkowski, 2008. "The influence of mood on the willingness to take financial risks," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(7), pages 905-923, October.
    18. Arkes, Hal R. & Herren, Lisa Tandy & Isen, Alice M., 1988. "The role of potential loss in the influence of affect on risk-taking behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 181-193, October.
    19. Eckel, Catherine C. & Grossman, Philip J., 2008. "Men, Women and Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, Elsevier.
    20. Fehr-Duda, Helga & Epper, Thomas & Bruhin, Adrian & Schubert, Renate, 2011. "Risk and rationality: The effects of mood and decision rules on probability weighting," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 78(1-2), pages 14-24, April.
    21. Drazen Prelec, 1998. "The Probability Weighting Function," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 497-528, May.
    22. Treffers, T. & Koellinger, Ph.D. & Picot, A.O., 2012. "In the Mood for Risk? A Random-Assignment Experiment Addressing the Effects of Moods on Risk Preferences," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2012-014-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    23. Kliger, Doron & Levy, Ori, 2003. "Mood-induced variation in risk preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 52(4), pages 573-584, 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. Lepori, Gabriele M., 2015. "Investor mood and demand for stocks: Evidence from popular TV series finales," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 33-47.
    2. Lopera, Maria Adelaida & Marchand, Steeve, 2018. "Peer effects and risk-taking among entrepreneurs: Lab-in-the-field evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 182-201.
    3. Filippin, Antonio & Gioia, Francesca, 2017. "Competition and Subsequent Risk-Taking Behaviour: Heterogeneity across Gender and Outcomes," IZA Discussion Papers 10792, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
    4. Tim Friehe & Hannah Schildberg-Hörisch, 2014. "Crime and Self-Control Revisited: Disentangling the Effect of Self-Control on Risk and Social Preferences," CESifo Working Paper Series 4747, CESifo Group Munich.
    5. repec:eee:eecrev:v:100:y:2017:i:c:p:463-487 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Chie Hanaoka & Hitoshi Shigeoka & Yasutora Watanabe, 2015. "Do Risk Preferences Change? Evidence from Panel Data before and after the Great East Japan Earthquake," NBER Working Papers 21400, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Gerhardt, Holger & Schildberg-Hörisch, Hannah & Willrodt, Jana, 2017. "Does self-control depletion affect risk attitudes?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 463-487.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D00 - Microeconomics - - General - - - General

    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:ver:wpaper:10/2014. 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: (Michael Reiter). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/isverit.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.