Lottery- and survey-based risk attitudes linked through a multichoice elicitation task

  • Giuseppe Attanasi
  • Nikolaos Georgantzís
  • Valentina Rotondi
  • Daria Vigani
Article

Abstract

We analyze the results from three different risk attitude elicitation methods. First, the broadly used test by Holt and Laury (2002), HL, second, the lottery-panel task by Sabater-Grande and Georgantzis (2002), SG, and third, responses to a survey question on self-assessment of general attitude towards risk (Dohmen et al. 2011). The first and the second task are implemented with real monetary incentives, while the third concerns all domains in life in general. Like in previous studies, the correlation of decisions across tasks is low and usually statistically non-significant. However, when we consider only subjects whose behavior across the panels of the SG task is compatible with constant relative risk aversion (CRRA), the correlation between HL and self-assessed risk attitude becomes significant. Furthermore, the correlation between HL and SG also increases for CRRA-compatible subjects, although it remains statistically non-significant.

Keywords

Risk aversion Elicitation methods Lottery choices 

JEL Classification

D81 C91 

References

  1. 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
  2. Attanasi, G., Casoria, F., Centorrino, S., & Urso, G. (2013). Cultural investment, local development and instantaneous social capital: a case study of a gathering festival in the South of Italy. Journal of Socio-Economics, 47, 228–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Attanasi, G., Corazzini, L., Georgantzís, N., & Passarelli, F. (2014a). Risk aversion, overconfidence and private information as determinants of majority thresholds. Pacific Economic Review, 19, 355–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Attanasi, G., Gollier, C., Montesano, A., & Pace, N. (2014b). Eliciting ambiguity aversion in unknown and in compound lotteries: a smooth ambiguity model experimental study. Theory and Decision, 77, 485–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernasconi, M., Corazzini, L., & Seri, R. (2014). Reference dependent preferences, hedonic adaptation and tax evasion: does the tax burden matter? Journal of Economic Psychology, 40, 103–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brañas-Garza, P., Guillen, P., & del Paso, R. L. (2008). Math skills and risk attitudes. Economics Letters, 99, 332–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, D. B., Giorgi, E. D., & Sim, M. (2012). Aspirational preferences and their representation by risk measures. Management Science, 58, 2095–2113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Butler, D. J., & Loomes, G. C. (2007). Imprecision as an account of the preference reversal phenomenon. American Economic Review, 97, 277–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Camerer, C., Babcock, L., Loewenstein, G., & Thaler, R. (1997). Labor supply of New York City cabdrivers: one day at a time. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 407–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Charness, G., & Gneezy, U. (2010). Portfolio choice and risk attitudes: an experiment. Economic Inquiry, 48, 133–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Charness, G., Gneezy, U., & Imas, A. (2013). Experimental methods: eliciting risk preferences. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 87, 43–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Charness, G., & Viceisza, A. (2016). Three risk-elicitation methods in the field: evidence from rural senegal. Review of Behavioral Economics, 3, 145–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cox, J. C., & Harrison, G. W. (2008). Risk aversion in experiments. Emerald: Research in Experimental Economics.Google Scholar
  14. Cox, J. C., Sadiraj, V., & Schmidt, U. (2014). Paradoxes and mechanisms for choice under risk. Experimental Economics, 18, 215–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Crosetto, P., & Filippin, A. (2013). The “bomb” risk elicitation task. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 47, 31–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Crosetto, P., & Filippin, A. (2016). A theoretical and experimental appraisal of five risk elicitation methods. Experimental Economics, 19, 613–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cubitt, R. P., Navarro-Martinez, D., & Starmer, C. (2015). On preference imprecision. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 50, 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dave, C., Eckel, C. C., Johnson, C. A., & Rojas, C. (2010). Eliciting risk preferences: when is simple better? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 41, 219–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Diecidue, E., Levy, M., & van de Ven, J. (2015). No aspiration to win? an experimental test of the aspiration level model. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 51, 245–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Diecidue, E., & Van De Ven, J. (2008). Aspiration level, probability of success and failure, and expected utility. International Economic Review, 49, 683–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., Sunde, U., Schupp, J., & Wagner, G. G. (2011). Individual risk attitudes: measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. Journal of the European Economic Association, 9, 522–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2008). Forecasting risk attitudes: an experimental study using actual and forecast gamble choices. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 68, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10, 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. García-Gallego, A., Georgantzis, N., Jaramillo-Gutiérrez, A., & Parravano, M. (2012). The lottery-panel task for bi-dimensional parameter-free elicitation of risk attitudes. Revista Internacional de Sociologia, 70, 53–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. García-Gallego, A., Georgantzís, N., Navarro-Martínez, D., & Sabater-Grande, G. (2011). The stochastic component in choice and regression to the mean. Theory and Decision, 71, 251–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Georgantzís, N., & Navarro-Martínez, D. (2010). Understanding the WTA-WTP gap: attitudes, feelings, uncertainty and personality. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31, 895–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harrison, G. W., Johnson, E., McInnes, M. M., & Rutström, E. E. (2005). Risk aversion and incentive effects: comment. American Economic Review, 95, 897–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harrison, G. W., & Rutström, E. E. (2009). Expected utility theory and prospect theory: one wedding and a decent funeral. Experimental Economics, 12, 133–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. He, P., Veronesi, M., and Engel, S. (2016). Consistency of risk preference measures and the role of ambiguity: An artefactual field experiment from China. Working Paper Series, Department of Economics, University of Verona.Google Scholar
  30. Hoffmann, A. O., Henry, S. F., & Kalogeras, N. (2013). Aspirations as reference points: an experimental investigation of risk behavior over time. Theory and Decision, 75, 193–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Holt, C. A., & Laury, S. K. (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. American Economic Review, 92, 1644–1655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Holt, C. A., & Laury, S. K. (2005). Risk aversion and incentive effects: new data without order effects. American Economic Review, 95, 902–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Isaac, R. M., & James, D. (2000). Just who are you calling risk averse? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 20, 177–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lejuez, C. W., Read, J. P., Kahler, C. W., Richards, J. B., Ramsey, S. E., Stuart, G. L., et al. (2002). Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk taking: the balloon analogue risk task (bart). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8, 75–84.Google Scholar
  36. Levy, H., & Levy, M. (2009). The safety first expected utility model: experimental evidence and economic implications. Journal of Banking and Finance, 33, 1494–1506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lévy-Garboua, L., Maafi, H., Masclet, D., & Terracol, A. (2012). Risk aversion and framing effects. Experimental Economics, 15, 128–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lönnqvist, J.-E., Verkasalo, M., Walkowitz, G., & Wichardt, P. C. (2015). Measuring individual risk attitudes in the lab: task or ask? An empirical comparison. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 119, 254–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lopes, L. L. (1987). Between hope and fear: the psychology of risk. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 255–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Miller, L., Meyer, D. E., & Lanzetta, J. T. (1969). Choice among equal expected value alternatives: sequential effects of winning probability level on risk preferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 79, 419–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Payne, J. W., Laughhunn, D. J., & Crum, R. (1980). Translation of gambles and aspiration level effects in risky choice behavior. Management Science, 26, 1039–1060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Roth, A. E., & Malouf, M. W. (1979). Game-theoretic models and the role of information in bargaining. Psychological Review, 86, 574–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sabater-Grande, G., & Georgantzis, N. (2002). Accounting for risk aversion in repeated prisoners’ dilemma games: an experimental test. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 48, 37–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, 99–118.Google Scholar
  45. Vieider, F. M., Lefebvre, M., Bouchouicha, R., Chmura, T., Hakimov, R., Krawczyk, M., et al. (2015). Common components of risk and uncertainty attitudes across contexts and domains: evidence from 30 countries. Journal of the European Economic Association, 13, 421–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wakker, P. P. (2010). Prospect theory: For risk and ambiguity. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. 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
  48. Zeelenberg, M., & Pieters, R. (2004). Consequences of regret aversion in real life: the case of the Dutch postcode lottery. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 93, 155–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Lille 1, LEM (Lille Economics Management), Cité ScientifiqueVilleneuve d’Ascq CedexFrance
  2. 2.Burgundy School of Wine and Spirits BusinessDijonFrance
  3. 3.University of ReadingReadingUK
  4. 4.Politecnico di MilanoMilanItaly
  5. 5.Catholic University of the Sacred HeartMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations