Advertisement

Journal of Risk and Uncertainty

, Volume 39, Issue 2, pp 137–160 | Cite as

Are risk preferences stable? Comparing an experimental measure with a validated survey-based measure

  • Lisa R. Anderson
  • Jennifer M. MellorEmail author
Article

Abstract

We examine the stability of risk preference within subjects by comparing measures obtained from two elicitation methods, an economics experiment with real monetary rewards and a survey with questions on hypothetical gambles. The survey questions have been validated by numerous empirical studies of investment, insurance demand, smoking and alcohol use, and recent studies have shown the experimental measure is associated with several real-world risky behaviors. For the majority of subjects, we find that risk preferences are not stable across elicitation methods. In interval regression models subjects’ risk preference classifications from survey questions on job-based gambles are not associated with risk preference estimates from the experiment. However, we find that risk classifications from inheritance-based gambles are significantly associated with the experimental measure. We identify some subjects for whom risk preference estimates are more strongly correlated across elicitation methods, suggesting that unobserved subject traits like comprehension or effort influence risk preference stability.

Keywords

Risk preferences Laboratory experiment Survey 

JEL Classification

C9 D8 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Schroeder Center for Healthcare Policy at the Thomas Jefferson Program in Public Policy at the College of William & Mary. The authors are grateful for valuable research assistance from Nathan Koch, Matthew Altamura, and Jennifer Kessler.

References

  1. Agnew, J. R., Anderson, L. R., Gerlach, J. R., & Szykman, L. R. (2008). Who chooses annuities? An experimental investigation of the role of gender, framing and defaults. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, 98(2), 418–422.Google Scholar
  2. Andersen, S., Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutström, E. E. (2006). Elicitation using multiple price list formats. Experimental Economics, 9, 383–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersen, S., Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutström, E. E. (2008). Lost in state space: are preferences stable? International Economic Review, 49(3), 1091–1112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, L. R., & Mellor, J. M. (2008). Predicting health behaviors with an experimental measure of risk preference. Journal of Health Economics, 27(5), 1260–1274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barsky, R. B., Kimball, M., Juster, F. T., & Shapiro, M. (1997). Preference parameters and behavioral heterogeneity: an experimental approach in the health and retirement study. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 537–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Becker, G. M., DeGroot, M. H., & Marschak, J. (1964). Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behavioral Science, 9, 226–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (2005). Risk preference instability across institutions: a dilemma. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 201(11), 4209–4214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, S. & Taylor, K. (2007). Education, risk preference, and wages. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Economics, University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
  9. Camerer, C. F., & Hogarth, R. M. (1999). The effects of financial incentives in experiments: a review and capital-labor-production framework. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19(1–3), 7–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Charles, K. K., & Hurst, C. (2003). The correlation of wealth across generations. Journal of Political Economy, 111, 1155–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cox, J. C., Roberson, B., & Smith, V. L. (1982). Theory and behavior of single-object auctions. In V. L. Smith (Ed.), Research in experimental economics, volume 2. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc.Google Scholar
  12. Dave, D., & Saffer, H. (2007). Risk tolerance and alcohol demand among adults and older adults, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Number 13482.Google Scholar
  13. Dave, C., Eckel, C., Johnson, C., & Rojas, C. (2007). Eliciting risk preferences: when is simple better?” Working Paper, August.Google Scholar
  14. Deck, C., Lee, J., Reyes, J. & Rosen, C. (2008). Measuring risk attitudes controlling for personality traits. Working Paper, June.Google Scholar
  15. Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., Sunde, U., Schupp, J. & Wagner, G. G. (2005). Individual risk attitudes: new evidence from a large, representative, experimentally-validated survey, IZA Discussion Paper No. 1730.Google Scholar
  16. Eckel, C., & Grossman, P. (2002). Sex differences and statistical stereotyping in attitudes toward financial risk. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23(4), 281–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eckel, C., & Grossman, P. (2008). Sex and risk: experimental evidence. In C. Plott & V. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of experimental economics results, volume 1. New York: North-Holland Publishing.Google Scholar
  18. Elston, J. A., Harrison, G. W. & Rutström, E. E. (2005). Characterizing the entrepreneur using field experiments, Working Paper, Max Planck Institute of Economics.Google Scholar
  19. Harrison, G. W., Johnson, E., McInnes, M., & Rutström, E. E. (2005). Temporal stability of estimates of risk aversion. Applied Financial Economics Letters, 1, 31–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harrison, G. W., List, J. A., & Towe, C. (2007). Naturally occurring preferences and exogenous laboratory experiments: a case study of risk aversion. Econometrica, 75(2), 433–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hey, J. D., Morone, A., & Schmidt, U. (2007). Noise and bias in eliciting preferences, Kiel Working Paper Number 1386.Google Scholar
  22. Holt, C. A., & Laury, S. K. (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. The American Economic Review, 92(5), 1644–1655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Isaac, R. M., & James, D. (2000). Just who are you calling risk averse? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 20(2), 177–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. James, D. (2007). Stability of risk preference parameter estimate within the Becker-Degroot-Marschak procedure. Experimental Economics, 10, 123–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kan, K. (2003). Residential mobility and job changes under uncertainty. Journal of Urban Economics, 54, 566–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kimball, M. S., Sahm, C. R. & Shapiro, M. D. (2007). User’s guide for risk preference parameters. Available at http://www-personal.umich.edu/~shapiro/data/risk_preference/ImputationUsersGuideJASA.pdf; Accessed March 10, 2009.
  27. Kimball, M. S., Sahm, C. R., & Shapiro, M. D. (2008). Imputing risk tolerance from survey responses. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 103(483), 1028–1038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kruse, J. B., & Thompson, M. A. (2003). Valuing low probability risk: survey and experimental evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 50, 495–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lahiri, K., & Song, J. G. (2000). The effect of smoking on health using a sequential self-selection model. Health Economics, 9, 491–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lusardi, A. (1998). On the importance of the precautionary saving motive. American Economic Review, 88(2), 449–453.Google Scholar
  31. Lusk, J. L., & Coble, K. H. (2005). Risk perceptions, risk preference, and acceptance of risky food. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 87(2), 393–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Picone, G., Sloan, F., & Taylor, D., Jr. (2004). Effects of risk and time preference and expected longevity on demand for medical tests. The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 28(1), 39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rosen, H. S., & Wu, S. (2004). Portfolio choice and health status. Journal of Financial Economics, 72(3), 457–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sahm, C. (2007). How much does risk tolerance change? Finance and Economics Discussion Series, Division of Research & Statistics and Monetary Affairs, Federal Reserve Board.Google Scholar
  35. Schmidt, L. (2008). Risk preferences and the timing of marriage and childbearing. Demography, 45(2), 439–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sloan, F. A., & Norton, E. C. (1997). Adverse selection, bequests, crowding out, and private demand for insurance: evidence from the market for long term care insurance. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 15(3), 210–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Spivey, C. (2007). Desperation or desire? The role of risk aversion in marriage,” Working Paper, Department of Economics, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville.Google Scholar
  38. von Gaudecker, H.-M., van Soest, A., & Wengström, E. (2008). Selection and mode effects in risk preference elicitation experiments, IZA Discussion Paper Number 3321.Google Scholar
  39. Weber, E. U., Blais, A.-R., & Betz, N. E. (2002). A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15, 263–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wooldridge, J. M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data (2nd ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsCollege of William and MaryWilliamsburgUSA

Personalised recommendations