Journal of Risk and Uncertainty

, Volume 45, Issue 2, pp 135–157 | Cite as

Comparing risk preferences over financial and environmental lotteries

  • Mary Riddel


This paper investigates whether preferences over environmental risks are best modeled using probability-weighted utility functions or can be reasonably approximated by expected utility (EU) or subjective EU models as is typically assumed. I elicit risk attitudes in the financial and environmental domains using multiple-price list experiment. I examine how subjects’ behavioral, attitudinal, and demographic characteristics affect their probability weighting functions first for financial risks, then for oil-spill risks. I find that most subjects tend to overweight extreme positive outcomes relative to expected utility in both the environmental and financial domains. Subjects are more likely to overemphasize low probability, extreme environmental outcomes than low probability, extreme financial outcomes, leading subjects to offer more support for mitigating environmental gambles than financial gambles with the same odds and equivalent outcomes. I conclude that EU models are likely to underestimate subjects’ willingness to pay for environmental cleanup programs or policies with uncertain outcomes.


Environmental risk Cumulative prospect theory Probability weighting Domain specificity 

JEL Classification

Q51 D03 D81 



I would like to thank the University of Nevada, Las Vegas for supporting this research through a sabbatical leave grant. I would also like to thank Sonja Kolstoe for her data collection efforts and W. Douglass Shaw for inspiring this research question.


  1. Abdellaoui, M. (2000). Parameter-free elicitation of utility and probability weighting functions. Management Science, 46, 1497–1512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alberini, A., Tonin, S., Turvani, M., & Chiabai, A. (2007). Paying for permanence: Public preferences for contaminated site cleanup. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 34, 155–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersen, S., Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutström, E. (2006). Elicitation using multiple price list formats. Experimental Economics, 9, 383–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beattie, J., & Loomes, G. (1997). The impact of incentives upon risky choice experiments. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 14, 155–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bleichrodt, H., & Pinto, J. L. (2000). A parameter-free elicitation of the probability weighting function in medical decision analysis. Management Science, 46, 1485–1496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruhin, A., Fehr-Duda, H., & Epper, T. (2010). Risk and rationality: Uncovering heterogeneity in probability distortion. Econometrica, 78, 1375–1412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Camerer, C. F., & Ho, T. (1994). Violations of the betweenness axiom and nonlinearity in probability. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 8, 167–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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, 7–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cameron, T. A. (2005). Individual option prices for climate change mitigation. Journal of Public Economics, 89, 283–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chetan, D., Eckel, C., Johnson, C., & Rojas, C. (2010). Eliciting risk preferences: When is simple better? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 41, 219–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Conte, A., Hey, J. D., & Moffatt, P. G. (2011). Mixture models of choice under risk. Journal of Econometrics, 162, 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Diecidue, E., & Wakker, P. (2001). On the intuition of rank-dependent utility. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 23, 281–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. (2008). Differences in the economic decisions of men and women: Experimental evidence. In C. Plott & V. L. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of experimental economics results (Vol. 1, pp. 509–519). New York: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harrison, G., & Rutström, E. (2008). Risk aversion in the laboratory. In J. C. Cox & G. Harrison (Eds.), Research in experimental economics (Vol. 12). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  16. Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutstrom, E. E. (2007). Estimating risk attitudes in Denmark: A field experiment. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 109, 341–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holt, C. A., & Laury, S. K. (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. American Economic Review, 92, 1644–1655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jianakoplos, N., & Bernasek, A. (1998). Are women more risk averse? Economic Inquiry, 36, 620–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Prelec, P. (1998). The probability weighting function. Econometrica, 6, 497–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Quiggin, J. (1982). A theory of anticipated utility. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3, 323–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rabin, M. (1998). Psychology and economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 36, 11–46.Google Scholar
  22. Riddel, M. (2012). Heterogeneity in life-duration preferences: Are risky recreationists really more risk loving? Working paper. Las Vegas: University of Nevada.Google Scholar
  23. Riddel, M., & Shaw, W. D. (2006). A theoretically-consistent empirical model of non-expected utility: An application to nuclear-waste transport. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 32, 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shogren, J., & Crocker, T. (1991). Risk, self-protection, and ex-ante economic value. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 20, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Tanaka, T., Camerer, C. F., & Nguyen, Q. (2010). Risk and time preferences: Linking experimental and household survey data from Vietnam. American Economic Review, 100, 557–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Viscusi, W. K. (1989). Prospective reference theory: Toward an explanation of the paradoxes. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2, 235–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Viscusi, W. K., & Hersch, J. (2001). Cigarette smokers as job risk takers. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 83, 269–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wakker, P., & Deneffe, D. (1996). Eliciting von Neumann-Morgenstern utilities when probabilities are distorted or unknown. Management Science, 42, 1131–1150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Wu, G., & Gonzalez, R. (1996). Curvature of the probability weighting function. Management Science, 42, 1676–1690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of Nevada, Las VegasLas VegasUSA

Personalised recommendations