IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwpex/0511003.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Effect of an Additional Alternative on Measured Risk Preferences in a Field Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Jim Engle-Warnick

    (McGill University)

  • Javier Escobal

    (GRADE)

  • Sonia Laszlo

    (McGill University)

Abstract

We experimentally test for the effect of an additional alternative on the measured risk preferences of farmers in rural Peru. In our experiment, subjects revealed their risk preferences with a series of choices between two gambles. We added a third gamble, which was always dominated by one of the two existing gambles. We found that subjects chose this gamble nearly one quarter of the time, in some cases causing them to appear more risk loving. We conclude that the number of available alternatives should be taken into account for predicting decisions under uncertainty.

Suggested Citation

  • Jim Engle-Warnick & Javier Escobal & Sonia Laszlo, 2005. "The Effect of an Additional Alternative on Measured Risk Preferences in a Field Experiment," Experimental 0511003, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpex:0511003
    Note: Type of Document - pdf; pages: 30
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de/econ-wp/exp/papers/0511/0511003.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Abigail Barr & Garance Genicot, 2008. "Risk Sharing, Commitment, and Information: An Experimental Analysis," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 6(6), pages 1151-1185, December.
    2. Marianne Bertrand & Dean Karlan & Sendhil Mullainathan & Eldar Shafir & Jonathan Zinman, 2010. "What's Advertising Content Worth? Evidence from a Consumer Credit Marketing Field Experiment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 125(1), pages 263-306.
    3. Marianne Bertrand & Dean Karlin & Sendhil Mullainathan & Eldar Shafir & Jonathan Zinman, 2005. "What's Psychology Worth? A Field Experiment in the Consumer Credit Market," NBER Working Papers 11892, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Feder, Gershon, 1980. "Farm Size, Risk Aversion and the Adoption of New Technology under Uncertainty," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 263-283, July.
    5. repec:ucp:ecdecc:v:38:y:1990:i:3:p:517-37 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Mette Wik & Tewodros Aragie Kebede & Olvar Bergland & Stein Holden, 2004. "On the measurement of risk aversion from experimental data," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(21), pages 2443-2451.
    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. Chetan Dave & Catherine Eckel & Cathleen Johnson & Christian Rojas, 2010. "Eliciting risk preferences: When is simple better?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 219-243, December.
    2. Jim Engle-Warnick & Javier Escobal & Sonia Laszlo, 2007. "Ambiguity Aversion As A Predictor Of Technology Choice: Experimental Evidence From Peru," Departmental Working Papers 2007-04, McGill University, Department of Economics.
    3. Jim Engle-Warnick & Javier Escobal & Sonia Laszlo, 2006. "Risk preference, ambiguity aversion and technology choice: Experimental and survey evidence from rural peru," Artefactual Field Experiments 00042, The Field Experiments Website.

    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. Jim Engle-Warnick & Javier Escobal & Sonia Laszlo, 2006. "The Effect Of An Additional Alternative On Measured Risk Preferences In A Laboratory Experiment In Peru," Departmental Working Papers 2006-10, McGill University, Department of Economics.
    2. Jim Engle-Warnick & Javier Escobal & Sonia Laszlo, 2009. "How do additional alternatives affect individual choice under uncertainty?," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 42(1), pages 113-140, February.
    3. Juan M. Gallego & Mariapia Mendola, 2013. "Labour Migration and Social Networks Participation in Southern Mozambique," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 80(320), pages 721-759, October.
    4. Damgaard, Mette Trier & Nielsen, Helena Skyt, 2018. "Nudging in education," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 313-342.
    5. B Kelsey Jack, "undated". "Market Inefficiencies and the Adoption of Agricultural Technologies in Developing Countries," CID Working Papers 50, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    6. Dean Karlan & John A. List, 2007. "Does Price Matter in Charitable Giving? Evidence from a Large-Scale Natural Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1774-1793, December.
    7. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    8. Shawn Cole & Xavier Gine & Jeremy Tobacman & Petia Topalova & Robert Townsend & James Vickery, 2013. "Barriers to Household Risk Management: Evidence from India," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 104-135, January.
    9. Dean Karlan & Adam Osman & Nour Shammout, 2021. "Increasing Financial Inclusion in the Muslim World: Evidence from an Islamic Finance Marketing Experiment," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 35(2), pages 376-397.
    10. Seth Garz & Xavier Gine & Dean Karlan & Rafe Mazer & Caitlin Sanford & Jonathan Zinman, 2021. "Consumer Protection for Financial Inclusion in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Bridging Regulator and Academic Perspectives," Annual Review of Financial Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 13(1), pages 219-246, November.
    11. Vincenzo Galasso & Tommaso Nannicini, 2016. "Persuasion and Gender: Experimental Evidence from Two Political Campaigns," CESifo Working Paper Series 5868, CESifo.
    12. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List, 2016. "Field Experiments in Markets," Artefactual Field Experiments j0002, The Field Experiments Website.
    13. Sule, Alan & Cemalcilar, Mehmet & Karlan, Dean S. & Zinman, Jonathan, 2015. "Unshrouding Effects on Demand for a Costly Add-on: Evidence from Bank Overdrafts in Turkey," Center Discussion Papers 198558, Yale University, Economic Growth Center.
    14. Zohal Hessami, 2016. "How Do Voters React to Complex Choices in a Direct Democracy? Evidence from Switzerland," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(2), pages 263-293, May.
    15. Chuan, Amanda & Samek, Anya Savikhin, 2014. "“Feel the Warmth” glow: A field experiment on manipulating the act of giving," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 198-211.
    16. Robin Burgess & Michael Greenstone & Nicholas Ryan & Anant Sudarshan, 2020. "Demand for Electricity on the Global Electrification Frontier," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2222, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    17. Johan Almenberg & Artashes Karapetyan, 2009. "Mental accounting in the housing market," IEW - Working Papers 453, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    18. María Paz Espinosa & Javier Gardeazabal, 2013. "Do Students Behave Rationally in Multiple Choice Tests? Evidence from a Field Experiment," Journal of Economics and Management, College of Business, Feng Chia University, Taiwan, vol. 9(2), pages 107-135, July.
    19. Garber, Gabriel & Mian, Atif & Ponticelli, Jacopo & Sufi, Amir, 2024. "Consumption smoothing or consumption binging? The effects of government-led consumer credit expansion in Brazil," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    20. Friedman, Willa & Wilson, Nicholas, 2022. "Can nudging overcome procrastinating on preventive health investments?," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    risk preferences; risk measurement instruments; experimental economics; field experiments;
    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
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes

    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:wpa:wuwpex:0511003. 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: EconWPA (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de .

    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.