Advertisement

Theory and Decision

, Volume 78, Issue 2, pp 209–218 | Cite as

Within- versus between-country differences in risk attitudes: implications for cultural comparisons

  • Ferdinand M. Vieider
  • Thorsten Chmura
  • Tyler Fisher
  • Takao Kusakawa
  • Peter Martinsson
  • Frauke Mattison Thompson
  • Adewara Sunday
Article

Abstract

Cultural comparisons enjoy increasing popularity in economics. Since cultural comparison must abandon random allocation to treatments, it is unclear whether differences found between countries can be attributed to country characteristics or are merely driven by differences in subject pools. In experiments in two Chinese cities and at two campuses in Ethiopia, we show that within-country differences are negligible. Differences between the two countries, on the other hand, are large.

Keywords

Risk attitudes Cultural comparison Experimental economics 

JEL Classification

C18 C90 D80 

References

  1. Abdellaoui, M., Baillon, A., Placido, L., & Wakker, P. P. (2011). The rich domain of uncertainty?: Source functions and their experimental implementation. American Economic Review, 101, 695–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baltussen, G., Post, T., van den Assem, M. J., & Wakker, P. P. (2012). Random Incentive Systems in a Dynamic Choice Experiment. Experimental Economics, 15(3), 418–443.Google Scholar
  3. Barberis, N. C. (2013). Thirty years of prospect theory in economics: A review and assessment. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(1), 173–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bohnet, B. I., Greig, F., Herrmann, B., & Zeckhauser, R. (2008). Betrayal Aversion?: Evidence from Brazil, China, Oman, Switzerland, Turkey, and the United States. American Economic Review, 98, 294–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruhin, A., Fehr-Duda, H., & Epper, T. (2010). Risk and rationality: Uncovering heterogeneity in probability distortion. Econometrica, 78(4), 1375–1412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Conte, A., Hey, J. D., & Moffatt, P. G. (2011). Mixture models of choice under risk. Journal of Econometrics, 162(1), 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., & Sunde, U. (2011). The intergenerational transmission of risk and trust attitudes. Review of Economic Studies, 79(2), 645–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Etchart-Vincent, N., & L\(\text{' }\) Haridon, O. (2011). Monetary incentives in the loss domain and behavior toward risk: An experimental comparison of three reward schemes including real losses. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 42, 61–83.Google Scholar
  9. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 2–3.Google Scholar
  10. Herrmann, B., Thoeni, C., & Gaechter, S. (2008). Antisocial punishment across societies. Science, 319(5868), 1362–1367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Loomes, G., Moffatt, P. G., & Sugden, R. (2002). A microeconometric test of alternative stochastic theories of risky choice. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 24(2), 103–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Oosterbeek, H., Sloof, R., & van de Kuilen, G. (2004). Cultural differences in ultimatum game experiments: Evidence from a meta-analysis. Experimental Economics, 7(2), 171–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Prelec, D. (1998). The probability weighting function. Econometrica, 66, 497–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rieger, M. O., Wang, M., & Hens, T. (2011). Prospect Theory around the World. working paper.Google Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sutter, M., RützleR, D., & Trautmann, S. T. (2012). Impatience and uncertainty: Experimental decisions predict adolescent’s field behavior. American Economic Review, 103(1), 510–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Vieider, F. M., Chmura, T., & Martinsson, P. (2012). Risk Attitudes, Development, and growth. Macroeconomic evidence from experiments in 30 Countries. Working paper.Google Scholar
  19. Vieider, F. M., Truong, N., Martinsson, P., & Pham Khanh, N. (2013). Risk preferences and development revisited. Working paper.Google Scholar
  20. Weber, E. U., & Hsee, C. (1998). Cross-cultural differences in risk perception, but cross-cultural similarities in attitudes towards perceived risk. Management Science, 44(9), 1205–1217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ferdinand M. Vieider
    • 1
  • Thorsten Chmura
    • 2
  • Tyler Fisher
    • 3
  • Takao Kusakawa
    • 4
  • Peter Martinsson
    • 5
  • Frauke Mattison Thompson
    • 6
  • Adewara Sunday
    • 7
  1. 1.WZB BerlinBerlin Germany
  2. 2.University of Nottingham Business SchoolNottinghamUK
  3. 3.University of Michigan at Ann ArborAnn ArborUSA
  4. 4.Hiroshima Shudo UniversityHiroshimaJapan
  5. 5.University of GothenburgGöteborgSweden
  6. 6.Kings College LondonLondonUK
  7. 7.University of Cape TownCape TownSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations