Detecting heterogeneous risk attitudes with mixed gambles
- 315 Downloads
We propose a task for eliciting attitudes toward risk that is close to real-world risky decisions which typically involve gains and losses. The task consists of accepting or rejecting gambles that provide a gain with probability \(p\) and a loss with probability \(1-p\). We employ finite mixture models to uncover heterogeneity in risk preferences and find that (i) behavior is heterogeneous, with one half of the subjects behaving as expected utility maximizers, (ii) for the others, reference-dependent models perform better than those where subjects derive utility from final outcomes, (iii) models with sign-dependent decision weights perform better than those without, and (iv) there is no evidence for loss aversion. The procedure is sufficiently simple so that it can be easily used in field or lab experiments where risk elicitation is not the main experiment.
KeywordsIndividual risk-taking behavior Latent heterogeneity Finite mixture models Reference-dependence Loss aversion
JEL ClassificationC91 D81
We thank James Cox, Erik Eyster, Glenn Harrison, Botond Koszegi, and Peter Wakker for various comments and suggestions. We also thank seminar and conference participants at HEC Paris, University of Lausanne, University Jaume I Castellon, Economic Science Association World Meeting in Copenhagen, International Meeting on Behavioral and Experimental Economics in Barcelona, D-TEA Workshop in Paris, and the 68th European Meetings of the Econometric Society in Toulouse. Support from HEC Paris Foundation, Swiss National Science Foundation grant 135602, NOVA FORUM, and Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia is gratefully acknowledged.
- Barseghyan, L., Molinari, F., O’Donoghue, T., & Teitelbaum, J. (2010). The nature of risk preferences: Evidence from insurance choices, Working paper, SSRN.Google Scholar
- Brunner, T., Levinsky, R., & Qiu, J., (2007). A note on skewness seeking: An experimental analysis,” Jena Economic Research Papers, 079.Google Scholar
- Ebert, S., & Wiesen, D. (2009). An experimental methodology for testing for prudence and third-order preferences, Bonn Econ Discussion Papers, 21.Google Scholar
- Ert, E., & Erev, I. (2010). On the descriptive value of loss aversion under risk, Working paper, Harvard Business School.Google Scholar
- Gächter, S., Johnson, E., & Herrmann, A. (2007). Individual-level loss aversion in riskless and risky choices, Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics Discussion Paper Series, ISSN 1749–3293.Google Scholar
- Greiner, B. (2004). An online recruiting system for economic experiments. In K. Kremer & V. Macho (Eds.), Forschung und wissenschaftliches Rechnen 2003. GWDG Bericht 63 (pp. 79–93). Göttingen: Ges. für Wiss.Google Scholar
- McFadden, D. (1981). Econometric models of probabilistic choice. In C. Manski & D. McFadden (Eds.), Structural analysis of discrete data with econometric applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Schoemaker, P. (1982). The expected utility model: It’s variants purposes, evidence and limitations. Journal of Economic Literature, 20, 529–563.Google Scholar
- Snowberg, Eric., & Wolfers, Justin. (2010). Explaining the favorite-longshot bias: Is risk love or misperceptions? Journal of Political Economy, 118(4), 723–746.Google Scholar