Abstract
Time, risk, and social preferences can play a major role in the development of the country. In order to explore these, we conducted a survey of 614 subjects in India. Our results based on the correlations of positive reciprocity and time preferences, trust and cognitive ability, and negative reciprocity and risk preferences suggest that Indians have different preferences compared to other countries. Similarly, the regional diversity in these preferences is found to be quite large. Thus, this indicates the need for unique implementation strategies in different regions for various governmental policies. Results based on principal component analysis (PCA) confirms that age, highest education, and cognitive ability play an important role in determining these preferences. Moreover, the regional diversities in these preferences indicate the need for unique implementation strategies in different regions for various governmental policies.
Keywords
- Risk preference
- Time preference
- Positive reciprocity
- Negative reciprocity
- Altruism
- Trust
- India
JEL Code
- D01
- D03
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buying options
References
Andreoni, J., & Sprenger, C. (2012). Estimating time preferences from convex budgets. American Economic Review, 102(7), 3333–3356.
Apicella, C. L., Dreber, A., Campbell, B., Gray, P. B., Hoffman, M., & Little, A. C. (2008). Testosterone and financial risk preferences. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29(6), 384–390.
Bekkers, R. H. (2007). Measuring altruistic behavior in surveys: The all-or-nothing dictator game. SurveyResearch Methods, 1(3), 1–11.
Borgonovi, F. (2012). The relationship between education and levels of trust and tolerance in Europe 1. The British Journal of Sociology, 63(1), 146–167.
Breuer, W., Hens, T., Salzmann, A. J., & Wang, M. (2011). Time preferences, culture, and household debt maturity choice. In National Centre of Competence in Research Financial Valuation and Risk Management, Working paper.
Caliendo, M., Fossen, F. M., Kritikos, A., & Wetter, M. (2014). The gender gap in entrepreneurship: Not just a matter of personality. CESifo Economic Studies, 61(1), 202–238.
Cardenas, J. C., & Carpenter, J. (2008). Behavioural development economics: Lessons from field labs in the developing world. The Journal of Development Studies, 44(3), 311–338.
Carter, M. R., & Castillo, M. (2002). The economic impacts of altruism, trust and reciprocity: An experimental approach to social capital (No. 1800-2016-142366).
Cassar, A., Healy, A., & Von Kessler, C. (2017). Trust, risk, and time preferences after a natural disaster: Experimental evidence from Thailand. World Development, 94, 90–105.
Castilla, C. (2015). Trust and reciprocity between spouses in India. American Economic Review, 105(5), 621–624.
Charness, G. (2004). Attribution and reciprocity in an experimental labor market. Journal of Labor Economics, 22(3), 665–688.
Charness, G., & Gneezy, U. (2012). Strong evidence for gender differences in risk taking. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 83(1), 50–58.
Charness, G., Haruvy, E., & Sonsino, D. (2007). Social distance and reciprocity: An internet experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 63(1), 88–103.
Charness, G., Gneezy, U., & Imas, A. (2013). Experimental methods: Eliciting risk preferences. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 87, 43–51.
Coppola, M. (2014). Eliciting risk-preferences in socio-economic surveys: How do different measures perform? The Journal of Socio-Economics, 48, 1–10.
Cox, J. C. (2004). How to identify trust and reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior, 46(2), 260–281.
Croson, R., & Buchan, N. (1999). Gender and culture: International experimental evidence from trust games. American Economic Review, 89(2), 386–391.
Dave, C., Eckel, C. C., Johnson, C. A., & Rojas, C. (2010). Eliciting risk preferences: When is simple better? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 41(3), 219–243.
Dittrich, M., & Leipold, K. (2014). Gender differences in time preferences. Economics Letters, 122(3), 413–415.
Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., & Sunde, U. (2008). Representative trust and reciprocity: Prevalence and determinants. Economic Inquiry, 46(1), 84–90.
Dunning, D., Fetchenhauer, D., & Schlösser, T. M. (2012). Trust as a social and emotional act: Noneconomic considerations in trust behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(3), 686–694.
Falk, A., Becker, A., Dohmen, T. J., Huffman, D., & Sunde, U. (2016). The preference survey module: A validated instrument for measuring risk, time, and social preferences. IZA Discussion Paper No. 9674
Falk, A., Becker, A., Dohmen, T., Enke, B., Huffman, D., & Sunde, U. (2018). Global evidence on economic preferences. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133(4), 1645–1692.
Fehr, E., & Hoff, K. (2011). Tastes, castes, and culture: The influence of society on preferences. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (2006). The economics of fairness, reciprocity and altruism–experimental evidence and new theories. Handbook of the economics of giving, altruism and reciprocity, 1, 615–691.
Freeman, D. J., Halevy, Y., & Kneeland, T. (2019). Eliciting risk preferences using choice lists. Quantitative Economics, 10(1), 217–237.
Freese, J. (2004). Risk preferences and gender differences in religiousness: Evidence from the world values survey. Review of Religious Research, 46, 88–91.
Fung, H. H., Lai, P., & Ng, R. (2001). Age differences in social preferences among Taiwanese and mainland Chinese: The role of perceived time. Psychology and Aging, 16(2), 351.
Hakhverdian, A., & Mayne, Q. (2012). Institutional trust, education, and corruption: A micro-macro interactive approach. The Journal of Politics, 74(3), 739–750.
Harrison, G. W., Igel Lau, M., Rutström, E. E., & Sullivan, M. B. (2005). Eliciting risk and time preferences using field experiments: Some methodological issues. In Field experiments in economics (pp. 125–218). Greenwich, CT: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Hillebrandt, H., Sebastian, C., & Blakemore, S. J. (2011). Experimentally induced social inclusion influences behavior on trust games. Cognitive Neuroscience, 2(1), 27–33.
Hofstede, G. (2009). Dimensionalizing cultures: The hofstede model in context. Online readings in pychology and culture (Unit 17, Chapter 14). ©International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology.
Hooghe, M., Marien, S., & de Vroome, T. (2012). The cognitive basis of trust. The relation between education, cognitive ability, and generalized and political trust. Intelligence, 40(6), 604–613.
Johansson-Stenman, O. L. O. F., Mahmud, M., & Martinsson, P. (2009). Trust and religion: Experimental evidence from rural Bangladesh. Economica, 76(303), 462–485.
Kachelmeier, S. J., & Shehata, M. (1992). Examining risk preferences under high monetary incentives: Experimental evidence from the People's Republic of China. The American Economic Review, 82, 1120–1141.
Kahsay, G. A., & Osberghaus, D. (2018). Storm damage and risk preferences: Panel evidence from Germany. Environmental and Resource Economics, 71(1), 301–318.
Kurosaki, T. (2001). Consumption smoothing and the structure of risk and time preferences: Theory and evidence from village India. Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics, 42, 103–117.
McCabe, K. A., Rigdon, M. L., & Smith, V. L. (2003). Positive reciprocity and intentions in trust games. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 52(2), 267–275.
Mehar, M., Yamano, T., & Panda, A. (2017). The role of gender, risk, and time preferences in Farmers' Rice variety selection in eastern India. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development, 14(1), 17–36.
Meier, S., & Sprenger, C. D. (2015). Temporal stability of time preferences. Review of Economics and Statistics, 97(2), 273–286.
Miller, A. S. (2000). Going to hell in Asia: The relationship between risk and religion in a cross cultural setting. Review of Religious Research, 42, 5–18.
Miller, A. S., & Hoffmann, J. P. (1995). Risk and religion: An explanation of gender differences in religiosity. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 34, 63–75.
Newell, R. G., & Siikamäki, J. (2015). Individual time preferences and energy efficiency. American Economic Review, 105(5), 196–200.
Pereira, P. T., Silva, N., & eSilva, J. A. (2006). Positive and negative reciprocity in the labor market. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 59(3), 406–422.
Perez-Arce, F. (2017). The effect of education on time preferences. Economics of Education Review, 56, 52–64.
Poulos, C., & Whittington, D. (2000). Time preferences for life-saving programs: Evidence from six less developed countries. Environmental Science and Technology, 34, 14.
Rieger, M. O., Wang, M., & Hens, T. (2014). Risk preferences around the world. Management Science, 61(3), 637–648.
Rubinstein, A. (1985). Choice of conjectures in a bargaining game with incomplete information. In Game-theoretic models of bargaining (pp. 99–114). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sawada, Y., & Kuroishi, Y. (2015). How does a natural disaster affect people’s preference? The case of a large scale flood in the Philippines using the convex time budget experiments. In Disaster risks, social preferences, and policy effects: Field experiments in selected ASEAN and East Asian Coutries (pp.57–84).
Schwarze, J., & Winkelmann, R. (2005). What can happiness research tell us about altruism? Evidence from the German Socio-Economic Panel.
Simon, H. A. (1993). Altruism and economics. The American Economic Review, 83(2), 156–161.
Tanaka, T., Camerer, C. F., & Nguyen, Q. (2010). Risk and time preferences: Linking experimental and household survey data from Vietnam. American Economic Review, 100(1), 557–571.
Thaler, R. H. (2017). Behavioral economics. Journal of Political Economy, 125(6), 1799–1805.
Wang, C. X., Webster, S., & Zhang, S. (2012). Newsvendor models with alternative risk preferences within expected utility theory and prospect theory frameworks. In Handbook of newsvendor problems (pp. 177–196). New York, NY: Springer.
Wang, M., Rieger, M. O., & Hens, T. (2016). How time preferences differ: Evidence from 53 countries. Journal of Economic Psychology, 52, 115–135.
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(4), 263–290.
Wen, F., He, Z., Gong, X., & Liu, A. (2014). Investors’ risk preference characteristics based on different reference point. Discrete dynamics in nature and society, 2014, 1–9.
Yamagishi, T., Horita, Y., Mifune, N., Hashimoto, H., Li, Y., Shinada, M., et al. (2012). Rejection of unfair offers in the ultimatum game is no evidence of strong reciprocity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(50), 20364–20368.
Yesuf, M., & Bluffstone, R. (2008). Wealth and time preference in rural Ethiopia (No. dp-08-16-efd).
Zamagni, S. (1995). The economics of altruism. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Zizzo, D. J. (2011). Do dictator games measure altruism? In L. Bruni & S. Zamagni (Eds.), Handbook on the economics of philanthropy, reciprocity and social enterprise. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Zyphur, M. J., Narayanan, J., Arvey, R. D., & Alexander, G. J. (2009). The genetics of economic risk preferences. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 22(4), 367–377.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mishra, A.K., Pradhan, P., Revankar, D.S. (2021). Eliciting Time, Risk, and Social Preferences: Experimental Evidence from India. In: Mishra, A.K., Arunachalam, V., Patnaik, D. (eds) Critical Perspectives on Emerging Economies. Contributions to Economics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59781-8_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59781-8_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-59780-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-59781-8
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)