IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wiw/wiwwuw/wuwp185.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

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. 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.
    2. Wakker,Peter P., 2010. "Prospect Theory," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521748681.
    3. 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.
    4. Hans-Martin Gaudecker & Arthur Soest & Erik Wengström, 2012. "Experts in experiments," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 159-190, October.
    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.
    6. Wakker,Peter P., 2010. "Prospect Theory," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521765015.
    7. 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.
    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. Stefan Zeisberger & Dennis Vrecko & Thomas Langer, 2012. "Measuring the time stability of Prospect Theory preferences," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 72(3), pages 359-386, March.
    5. 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.
    6. Elena Cettolin & Arno Riedl, 2017. "Justice Under Uncertainty," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(11), pages 3739-3759, November.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Adam Booij & Bernard Praag & Gijs Kuilen, 2010. "A parametric analysis of prospect theory’s functionals for the general population," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 115-148, February.
    10. Konstantinos Georgalos, 2016. "Dynamic decision making under ambiguity," Working Papers 112111041, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    11. Drouhin, Nicolas, 2015. "A rank-dependent utility model of uncertain lifetime," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 208-224.
    12. Jürgen Eichberger & Simon Grant & David Kelsey, 2012. "When is ambiguity–attitude constant?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 239-263, December.
    13. Martín Egozcue & Sébastien Massoni & Wing-Keung Wong & RiÄ ardas Zitikis, 2012. "Integration-segregation decisions under general value functions: "Create your own bundle — choose 1, 2, or all 3!"," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 12057, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    14. 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.
    15. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.
    16. Steffen Huck & Wieland Müller, 2012. "Allais for all: Revisiting the paradox in a large representative sample," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 261-293, June.
    17. Groneck, Max & Ludwig, Alexander & Zimper, Alexander, 2016. "A life-cycle model with ambiguous survival beliefs," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 137-180.
    18. Zimper, Alexander, 2012. "Asset pricing in a Lucas fruit-tree economy with the best and worst in mind," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 610-628.
    19. Syngjoo Choi & Jeongbin Kim & Eungik Lee & Jungmin Lee, 2022. "Probability Weighting and Cognitive Ability," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(7), pages 5201-5215, July.
    20. Thomas Epper & Helga Fehr-Duda & Adrian Bruhin, 2011. "Viewing the future through a warped lens: Why uncertainty generates hyperbolic discounting," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 169-203, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Risk; MPL; Experiment; Revealed Preferences;
    All these 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.