Review of Economics of the Household

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 599–623 | Cite as

Parenting is risky business: parental risk attitudes in small stakes decisions on behalf of their children

Article

Abstract

Parents often face risk when making decisions on behalf of their children, since outcomes may affect child development. We perform an incentive-compatible field experiment using the Holt and Laury (Am Econ Rev 92(5):1644–1655, 2002) design to elicit parental risk preferences in a stewardship decision framework. Multivariate analysis using different estimation techniques suggests that parents are significantly more risk-averse when deciding for their child than for themselves. Higher risk aversion is linked to characteristics of parents, not of children. Mood and gender of the deciding parent play a key role. If these results also hold for larger stakes, insights from this study could help to improve decision environments for parents to limit inequality between children due to diverging parental risk preferences.

Keywords

Risk preference Parents Children Lottery choice Experiment Survey 

JEL Classification

C9 D10 D80 

Supplementary material

11150_2014_9245_MOESM1_ESM.docx (2.5 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 2543 kb)

References

  1. Andersen, S., Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutström, E. E. (2010). Preference heterogeneity in experiments: Comparing the field and laboratory. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 73(2), 209–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ball, S., Eckel, C. C., & Heracleous, M. (2010). Risk aversion and physical prowess: Prediction, choice and bias. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 41, 167–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartling, B., Fehr, E., & Schunk, D. (2012). Health effects on children’s willingness to compete. Experimental Economics, 15(1), 58–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker, G. S. (1981). Altruism in the family and selfishness in the market place. Economica, 48(189), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brooks, R., Faff, R., Mulino, D., & Scheelings, R. (2009). Deal or no deal, that is the question: The impact of increasing stakes and framing effects on decision-making under risk. International Review of Finance, 9(1/2), 27–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chakravarty, S., Harrison, G. W., Haruvy, E. E., & Rutström, E. E. (2005). Are your risk-averse over other people’s money? Indian Institut of Management Ahmedabad India.Google Scholar
  7. Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., & Sunde, U. (2010). Are risk aversion and impatience related to cognitive ability? American Economic Review, 100(3), 1238–1260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., & Sunde, U. (2012). The intergenerational transmission of risk and trust attitudes. The Review of Economic Studies, 79(2), 645–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., et al. (2011). Individual risk attitudes: Measurement, determinants and behavioral consequences. Journal of the European Economic Association, 9(3), 522–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2008). Forecasting risk attitudes: An experimental study using actual and forecast gamble choices. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 68(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Glomm, G. (1997). Parental choice of human capital investment. Journal of Development Economics, 53(1), 99–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grossman, P. J., & Lugovskyy, O. (2011). An experimental test of the persistence of gender-based stereotypes. Economic Inquiry, 49(2), 598–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grossmann, P. J. (2013). Holding fast: The persistence and dominance of gender stereotypes. Economic Inquiry, 51(1), 747–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Halek, M., & Eisenhauer, J. G. (2001). Demography of risk aversion. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 68(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harbaugh, W. T., Krause, K., & Vesterlund, L. (2002). Risk attitudes of children and adults: Choices over small and large probability gains and losses. Experimental Economics, 5(1), 1386–4157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutström, E. E. (2007). Estimating risk attitudes in Denmark: A field experiment. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 109(2), 341–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harrison, G. W., & List, J. A. (2004). Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature, 42, 1013–1059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harrison, G. W., & Rutström, E. E. (2008). Risk aversion in the laboratory. In J. C. Cox & G. W. Harrison (Eds.), Risk aversion in Experiments (Vol. 12). Emerald: Bingley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heineck, G., & Wölfel, O. (2010). Parental risk attitudes and children’s secondary school track choice. IZA—Institut zur Zukunft der Arbeit. Bonn. IZA Discussion Paper Series, Nr. No. 5197.Google Scholar
  21. Holt, C. A., & Laury, S. K. (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. American Economic Review, 92(5), 1644–1655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Isen, A. M., & Patrick, R. (1983). The effect of positive feelings on risk taking: When the chips are down. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 31(2), 194–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kliger, D., & Levy, O. (2003). Mood-induced variation in risk preferences. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 52(4), 573–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Laury, S. K., & Holt, C. A. (2005). Further reflections on prospect theory (pp. 2006–2023). No: Andrew Young School of Policy Studies Research Paper Series.Google Scholar
  25. McLeish, K. N., & Oxoby, R. J. (2009). Stereotypes in intertemporal choice. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 70(1/2), 135–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pratt, J. W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1985). Prinzipals and agents: The structure of business. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  27. Sahm, C. R. (2007). How much does risk tolerance change? Hg. v. Divisions of Research and Statistics and Monetary Affairs. Federal Reserve Board. Washington, DC, Finance and Economics Discussion Series, Nr. 66.Google Scholar
  28. Schubert, R., Brown, M., Gysler, M., & Brachinger, H. W. (1999). Financial decision-making: are women really more risk-averse? American Economic Review, 89(2), 381–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Georg-August-Universität GöttingenGöttingenGermany
  2. 2.Munich Center for the Economics of AgingMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations