Comparing risk elicitation in lotteries with visual or contextual framing aids

Estepa-Mohedano, Lorenzo and Espinosa, Maria Paz (2021): Comparing risk elicitation in lotteries with visual or contextual framing aids.

Abstract

Eliciting risk preferences usually involves tasks that subjects may find complex, such as calculations of expected values and assessment of probabilities in multiple price lists (MPL). There is a serious concern that the decisions of the subjects may be driven by miscalculations or miscalibration of probabilities, rather than by their risk preferences. In this paper, we test whether introducing aids to the usual lottery choiceswould help to reduce the error rate and possibly change risk aversion elicitation. The experiment was run with subjectsfrom a rural area in Honduras. We compare the risk elicitation results of a multiple price list and two different treatments, one with visual aids (graphical representation of probabilities) and the other with contextual framing aids (bills to represent rewards and a distribution of ten beans between the two rewards to represent a lottery). Our results indicate that risk attitudes elicitation was affected with contextual framing aids, reducing risk aversion. For the treatment with visual aids we observe no effect.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: risk elicitation, visual aids, contextual framing aids
• Subjects: 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

Alekseev, A., Charness, G., and Gneezy, U. (2017). Experimental methods: When and why contextual instructions are important. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 134:48–59.

Amador-Hidalgo, L., Brañas-Garza, P., Espín, A. M., García-Muñoz, T., and Hernández-Román, A. (2021). Cognitive abilities and risk-taking: Errors, not preferences. European Economic Review, 134:1–17.

Andersson, O., Holm, H. J., Tyran, J.-R., and Wengström, E. (2016). Risk aversion relates to cognitive ability: Preferences or noise? Journal of the European Economic Association, 14(5):1129–1154.

Andersson, O., Holm, H. J., Tyran, J.-R., and Wengström, E. (2020). Robust inference in risk elicitation tasks. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 61(3):195– 209.

Benjamin, D., Brown, S., and Shapiro, J. (2013). Who is ’behavioral’? cognitive ability and anomalous preferences. Journal of the European Economic Association, 11(6):1231–1255.

Camerer, C. F., Loewenstein, G., and Rabin, M. (2004). Advances in Behavioral Economics. Princeton University Press.

Carbone, E. and Hey, J. (2000). Which error story is best? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 20(2):161–176.

Charness, G., Gneezy, U., and Imas, A. (2013). Experimental methods: Eliciting risk preferences. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 87:43–51.

Charness, G. and Viceisza, A. (2016). Three risk-elicitation methods in the field: Evidence from rural Senegal. Review of Behavioral Economics, 3(2):145–171.

Cleveland, W. S., Harris, C. S., and McGill, R. (1982). Judgments of circle sizes on statistical maps. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 77(379):541–547.

Cleveland, W. S., Harris, C. S., and McGill, R. (1983). Human factors and behavioral science: Experiments on quantitative judgments of graphs and maps. The Bell System Technical Journal, 62(6):1659–1674.

Cleveland, W. S. and McGill, R. (1984). Graphical perception: Theory, experimentation, and application to the development of graphical methods. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79(387):531–554.

Csermely, T. and Rabas, A. (2016). How to reveal people’s preferences: Comparing time consistency and predictive power of multiple price list risk elicitation methods. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 53(2-3):107–136.

Dave, C., Eckel, C. C., Johnson, C. A., and Rojas, C. (2010). Eliciting risk preferences: When is simple better? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 41(3):219– 243. Dessalles, J.-L. (2006). A structural model of intuitive probability. In D. Fum, F. Del Missier & A. Stocco (eds). Trieste, IT: Edizioni Goliardiche: 86-91.

Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., and Sunde, U. (2018). On the relationship between cognitive ability and risk preference. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 32(2):115–134.

Drichoutis, A. and Lusk, J. (2016). What can multiple price lists really tell us about risk preferences? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 53(2):89–106.

Fontanari, L., Gonzalez, M., Vallortigara, G., and Girotto, V. (2014). Probabilistic cognition in two indigenous mayan groups. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(48):17075–17080.

Gegax, D., Gerking, S., and Schulze, W. (1991). Perceived risk and the marginal value of safety. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 73(4):589–596.

Gerking, S., De Haan, M., and Schulze, W. (1988). The marginal value of job safety: a contingent valuation study. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1(2):185–199.

Harrison, G. W. (2008). Maximum likelihood estimation of utility functions using stata. University of Central Florida, Working Paper.

Harrison, G. W., Rutström, E. E., et al. (2008). Risk aversion in the laboratory. Research in Experimental Economics, 12(8):41–196.

Hirschauer, N., Musshoff, O., Maart-Noelck, S. C., and Gruener, S. (2014). Eliciting risk attitudes–how to avoid mean and variance bias in holt-and-laury lotteries. Applied Economics Letters, 21(1):35–38.

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

Jacobson, S. and Petrie, R. (2009). Learning from mistakes: What do inconsistent choices over risk tell us? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 38(2):143–158.

Krupnick, A., Alberini, A., Cropper, M., Simon, N., O’Brien, B., Goeree, R., and Heintzelman, M. (2002). Age, health and the willingness to pay for mortality risk reductions: a contingent valuation survey of ontario residents. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 24(2):161–186.

Loomes, G., Moffatt, P., and Sudgen, R. (2002). A microeconometric test of alternative stochastic theories of risky choice. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 24(2):103–130.

Luce, R. (1959). Response latencies and probabilities. In Arrow, Kenneth J.; Karlin, Samuel; Suppes, Patrick (eds). Stanford University Press: 298-311.

Meraner, M., Musshoff, O., and Finger, R. (2018). Using involvement to reduce inconsistencies in risk preference elicitation. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 73:22–33.

Taylor, M. (2013). Bias and brains: Risk aversion and cognitive ability across real and hypothetical settings. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 46(9):299– 320.