To pay or not to pay: Measuring risk preferences in lab and field

Brañas-Garza, Pablo and Estepa Mohedano, Lorenzo and Jorrat, Diego and Orozco, Víctor and Rascon-Ramirez, Ericka (2020): To pay or not to pay: Measuring risk preferences in lab and field.

Abstract

Measuring risk preferences in the field is critical for policy, however, it can be expensive and may generate unequal payoffs due to bad luck. For instance, the commonly used measure of Holt and Laury (2002) relies on a dozen of lottery choices and payments which makes it time consuming and costly, but also raises moral concerns as a result of the unequal payments generated by the lotteries. We propose a short version of the Holt and Laury (2002) which produces in the lab (Spain) the same results as the long HL. Using the short HL in the field (Honduras and Nigeria), we observe that paying or not for the measurement of risk preferences produces the same findings. Our low-cost approach makes the measurement of risk preferences simpler, faster and cheaper in the lab and field.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Risk preferences, Holt Laury, Field Experiments, Monetary Payoffs, Incentives.
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C9 - Design of Experiments > C91 - Laboratory, Individual Behavior; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C9 - Design of Experiments > C93 - Field Experiments; D - Microeconomics > D8 - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty > D81 - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

References

Al-Ubaydli, O., List, J. A., and Suskind, D. L. (2017). What can we learn from experiments? Understanding the threats to the scalability of experimental results. The American Economic Review,107(5):282-86.

Amador, L., Brañas-Garza, P., Espín, A. M., Garcia, T., and Hernández, A. (2020). Cognitive abilities and risk-taking: Errors, not preferences.

Andersen, S., Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., and Rutström, E. E. (2008). Eliciting risk and time preferences. Econometrica, 76(3):583-618.

Apesteguia, J. and Ballester, M. A. (2018). Monotone stochastic choice models: The case of risk and time preferences. Journal of Political Economy, 126(1):74-106.

Apesteguia, J., Ballester, M. _A., Gutiérrez, A., et al. (2019). Random models for the joint treatment of risk and time preferences. Technical report.

Banerjee, A. V., Chassang, S., and Snowberg, E. (2017). Decision theoretic approaches to experiment design and external validity. In Handbook of Economic Field Experiments, volume 1, pages 141-174. Elsevier.

Barreda-Tarrazona, I., Jaramillo-Gutiérrez, A., Navarro-Martínez, D., and Sabater-Grande, G. (2011). Risk attitude elicitation using a multi-lottery choice task: Real vs. hypothetical incentives. Spanish Journal of Finance and Accounting / Revista Española De Financiación Y Contabilidad, 40(152):613-628.

Crosetto, P. and Filippin, A. (2013). The `bomb' risk elicitation task. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 47(1):31-65.

Eckel, C. C. and 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.

Etchart-Vincent, N. and l'Haridon, O. (2011). Monetary incentives in the loss domain and behaviour toward risk: An experimental comparison of three reward schemes including real losses. Journal of risk and uncertainty, 42(1):61-83.

Exadaktylos, F., Espín, A. M., and Branas-Garza, P. (2013). Experimental subjects are not different. Nature Scientific Reports, 3:1213.

Friedman, B. (1974). Risk aversion and the consumer choice of health insurance option. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 56:209-214.

Gneezy, U. and Potters, J. (1997). An experiment on risk taking and evaluation periods. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2):631-645.

Holt, C. A. and Laury, S. K. (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. The American Economic Review, 92(5):1644-1655.

Holt, C. A. and Laury, S. K. (2005). Risk aversion and incentive effects: New data without order effects. The American Economic Review, 95(3):902-912.

Katz, E. and Stark, O. (1986). Labor migration and risk aversion in less developed countries. Journal of Labor Economics, 4(1):134-149.

Kühberger, A., Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., and Perner, J. (2002). Framing decisions: Hypothetical and real. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89(2):1162-1175.

Lakens, D. (2017). Equivalence tests: A practical primer for t tests, correlations, and meta-analyses. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4):355-362. PMID: 28736600.

Liu, E. M. (2013). Time to change what to sow: Risk preferences and technology adoption decisions of cotton farmers in china. Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(4):1386-1403.

Miller, J. B. and Sanjurjo, A. (2018). Surprised by the hot hand fallacy? a truth in the law of small numbers. Econometrica, 86(6):2019-2047.

Peters, J., Langbein, J., and Roberts, G. (2018). Generalization in the tropics-development policy, randomized controlled trials, and external validity. The World Bank Research Observer, 33(1):34-64.

Schubert, R., Brown, M., Gysler, M., and Brachinger, H. W. (1999). Financial decision-making: are women really more risk-averse? The American Economic Review, 89(2):381-385.

Weiss, Y. (1972). The risk element in occupational and educational choices. Journal of Political Economy, 80(6):1203-1213.

Wellek, S. (2010). Testing statistical hypotheses of equivalence and noninferiority. Chapman and Hall/CRC.

Wiseman, D. B. and Levin, I. P. (1996). Comparing risky decision making under conditions of real and hypothetical consequences. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 66(3):241-250.