IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wiw/wiwwuw/wuwp185.html

How to reveal people's preferences: Comparing time consistency and predictive power of multiple price list risk elicitation methods

Author

Listed:
  • Tamás Csermely

    (Department of Economics, Vienna University of Economics and Business)

  • Alexander Rabas

    (Department of Economics, University of Vienna)

Abstract

The question of how to measure and classify people’s risk preferences is of substantial importance in the field of Economics. Inspired by the multitude of ways used to elicit risk preferences, we conduct a holistic investigation of the most prevalent method, the multiple price list (MPL) and its derivations. In accordance with previous literature, we find that revealed preferences differ under various and even the same versions of the MPL. Thus, an arbitrary selection of a particular risk assessment method can lead to biased results especially if researchers investigate its connection to other phenomena. In order to resolve this issue, we determine the most stable version of the MPL by using multiple measures of within-method consistency, and the version with the highest forecast accuracy by using behavior in two economically relevant games as benchmarks. A derivation of the well-known method by Holt and Laury (2002), where the highest payoff is varied instead of probabilities, emerges as the best MPL method in both dimensions.

Suggested Citation

  • Tamás Csermely & Alexander Rabas, 2014. "How to reveal people's preferences: Comparing time consistency and predictive power of multiple price list risk elicitation methods," Department of Economics Working Papers wuwp185, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwwuw:wuwp185
    Note: PDF Document
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://epub.wu.ac.at/4319/1/wp185.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wakker,Peter P., 2010. "Prospect Theory," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521765015, November.
    2. von Gaudecker, H.M. & van Soest, A.H.O. & Wengstrom, E., 2008. "Selection and Mode Effects in Risk Preference Elicitation Experiments," Discussion Paper 2008-11, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    3. Peter P. Wakker, 2008. "Explaining the characteristics of the power (CRRA) utility family," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(12), pages 1329-1344.
    4. Peter P. Wakker, 2008. "Explaining the characteristics of the power (CRRA) utility family," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(12), pages 1329-1344, December.
    5. Walker, James M. & Smith, Vernon L. & Cox, James C., 1987. "Bidding behavior in first price sealed bid auctions : Use of computerized Nash competitors," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 239-244.
    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. Paolo Crosetto & Antonio Filippin, 2016. "A theoretical and experimental appraisal of four risk elicitation methods," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(3), pages 613-641, September.

    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. 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.
    2. Csermely, Tamás & Rabas, Alexander, 2014. "How to reveal people's preferences: Comparing time consistency and predictive power of multiple price list risk elicitation methods," Department of Economics Working Paper Series 185, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    3. Franziska Tausch & Jan Potters & Arno Riedl, 2014. "An experimental investigation of risk sharing and adverse selection," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 167-186, April.
    4. Peon, David & Calvo, Anxo & Antelo, Manel, 2014. "A short-but-efficient test for overconfidence and prospect theory. Experimental validation," MPRA Paper 54135, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Elena Cettolin & Arno Riedl, 2017. "Justice Under Uncertainty," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(11), pages 3739-3759, November.
    6. Vieider, Ferdinand M. & Truong, Nghi & Martinsson, Peter & Pham Khanh Nam & Martinsson, Peter, 2013. "Risk preferences and development revisited: A field experiment in Vietnam," Discussion Papers, WZB Junior Research Group Risk and Development SP II 2013-403, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    7. Luke Lindsay, 2013. "The arguments of utility: Preference reversals in expected utility of income models," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 175-189, April.
    8. Han Bleichrodt & Rogier J. D. Potter van Loon & Kirsten I. M. Rohde & Peter P. Wakker, 2013. "A Criticism of Doyle's survey of time preference: A correction regarding the CRDI and CADI families," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(5), pages 630-631, September.
    9. Syngjoo Choi & Jeongbin Kim & Eungik Lee & Jungmin Lee, 2022. "Probability Weighting and Cognitive Ability," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(7), pages 5201-5215, July.
    10. Ikefuji, M. & Laeven, R.J.A. & Magnus, J.R. & Muris, C.H.M., 2010. "Burr Utility," Discussion Paper 2010-81, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
      • Ikefuji, M. & Laeven, R.J.A. & Magnus, J.R. & Muris, C.H.M., 2010. "Burr Utility," Other publications TiSEM fddee215-edea-4800-ba72-d, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    11. Julie Bjørner Søe, 2025. "Implicit Prioritization of Life Insurance Coverage: A Study of Policyholder Preferences in a Danish Pension Company," Risks, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-17, May.
    12. Aurélien Baillon & Zhenxing Huang & Asli Selim & Peter P. Wakker, 2018. "Measuring Ambiguity Attitudes for All (Natural) Events," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(5), pages 1839-1858, September.
    13. Backhaus, Teresa, 2025. "Training in late careers — A structural approach," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    14. Caroline Hillairet & Sarah Kaakai & Mohamed Mrad, 2022. "Time-consistent pension policy with minimum guarantee and sustainability constraint," Papers 2207.01536, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2024.
    15. Tesselaar, Max & Botzen, W.J. Wouter & Robinson, Peter J. & Aerts, Jeroen C.J.H. & Zhou, Fujin, 2022. "Charity hazard and the flood insurance protection gap: An EU scale assessment under climate change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    16. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & l’Haridon, Olivier & Pinto, Jose Luis, 2016. "An elicitation of utility for quality of life under prospect theory," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 121-134.
    17. Arthur E. Attema & Marieke Krol & Job van Exel & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2018. "New findings from the time trade-off for income approach to elicit willingness to pay for a quality adjusted life year," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(2), pages 277-291, March.
    18. Michele Garagnani, 2023. "The predictive power of risk elicitation tasks," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 67(2), pages 165-192, October.
    19. SHIBAYAMA, Sotaro & MATTSSON, Pauline & BROSTRÖM, Anders, 2026. "Risk in science: The socialization of risk-taking in early-career training," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(1).
    20. de Castro, Luciano & Galvao, Antonio F. & Noussair, Charles N. & Qiao, Liang, 2022. "Do people maximize quantiles?," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 22-40.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • 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:wiw:wiwwuw:wuwp185. 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: Department of Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.wu.ac.at/economics/en .

    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.