Skip to main content
Log in

Risk Attitudes of Children and Adults: Choices Over Small and Large Probability Gains and Losses

  • Published:
Experimental Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper we examine how risk attitudes change with age. We present participants from age 5 to 64 with choices between simple gambles and the expected value of the gambles. The gambles are over both gains and losses, and vary in the probability of the non-zero payoff. Surprisingly, we find that many participants are risk seeking when faced with high-probability prospects over gains and risk averse when faced with small-probability prospects. Over losses we find the exact opposite. Children's choices are consistent with the underweighting of low-probability events and the overweighting of high-probability ones. This tendency diminishes with age, and on average adults appear to use the objective probability when evaluating risky prospects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Battalio, R.C., Kagel, J.H., and MacDonald, D.N. (1985). “Animals' Choices Over Uncertain Outcomes: Some Initial Experimental Results.” The American Economic Review. 75, 597–613.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, C. (1989). “An Experimental Test of Several Generalized Utility Theories.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 2, 61–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, C. (1998). “Bounded Rationality in Individual Decision Making.” Experimental Economics. 1, 163–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, C. and Teck-Hua Ho. (1994). “Violations of the Betweenness Axiom and Nonlinearity in Probability.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 8, 167–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, C. and Howard, K. (1989). “Decision Processes for Low Probability Events.” Policy Implications. 8(4), 565–592.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckel, D., Grossmann, P., Lutz, N., and Padmanabhan, V. (1998). “Playing it Safe: Gender Differences in Risk Aversion.” Unpublished manuscript.

  • Edwards, W. (1955). “The Prediction of Decisions Among Bets.” Journal of Experimental Psychology. 50, 201–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holt, C.A. (1986). “Preference Reversals and the Independence Axiom.” The American Economic Review. 76, 508–515.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isaac, R.M. and Duncan J. (2000). “Just Who Are You Calling Risk Averse?” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 20, 177–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jianakopolos, N.A. and Bernasek, A. (1998). “Are Women More Risk Averse?” Economic Inquiry. XXXVI, 620–630.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kagel, J.H., MacDonald, D.N., and Battalio, R.C. (1990). “Tests of “Fanning Out” of Indifference Curves: Results from Animal and Human Experiments.” The American Economic Review. 80(4), 912–921.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machina, M.J. (1987). “Choice Under Uncertainty: Problems Solved and Unsolved.” Journal of Economic Perspectives. 1, 121–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prelec, D. (1998). “The Probability Weighting Function.” Econometrica. 66, 497–527.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quiggin, J. (1982). “A Theory of Anticipated Utility.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 3(4), 323–343

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsey, F.P. (1931). The Foundation of Mathematics. New York: Harcourt Brace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reyna, V.F. and Brainerd, C.J. (1995). “Fuzzy-Trace Theory: An Interim Synthesis.” Learning and Individual Differences. 7, 1–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage, L.J. (1954). The Foundations of Statistics. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlottmann, A. (2001). “Children's Probability Intuitions: Understanding the Expected Value of Complex Gambles.” Child Development. 72, 103–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlottmann, A. and Anderson, N.H. (1994). “Children's Judgments of Expected Value.” Development Psychology. 30, 56–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoemaker, P.J. (1982). “The Expected Utility Model: It'sVariants, Purposes, Evidence and Limitations.” Journal of Economic Literature. 30, 529–563.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starmer, C. (2000). “Developments in Non-Expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice Under Risk.” Journal of Economic Literature. 38, 332–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. and Fox, C.R. (1995). “Weighing Risk and Uncertainty.” Psychological Review. 102, 269–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1992). “Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 5, 297–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., Slovic, P., and Kahneman, D. (1990). “The Causes of Preference Reversal.” The American Economic Review. 80, 204–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, G. and Gonzalez, R. (1998). “Common Consequence Conditions in Decision Making Under Risk.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 16, 115–139.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Harbaugh, W.T., Krause, K. & Vesterlund, L. Risk Attitudes of Children and Adults: Choices Over Small and Large Probability Gains and Losses. Experimental Economics 5, 53–84 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016316725855

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016316725855

Navigation