From Measurements to Measures: Learning Risk Preferences under Different Risk Elicitation Methods

Caferra, Rocco and Morone, Andrea and Pierno, Donato (2024): From Measurements to Measures: Learning Risk Preferences under Different Risk Elicitation Methods.

Abstract

This study explores how people learn and adapt their risk preferences using different elicitation methods, challenging the neoclassical theory that suggests preferences are fixed. Instead, we show that preferences can change. However, we aim to explain whether the observed changes are due to a real change in the measure, i.e. individuals' risk preferences, or if they are attributable to the limitations of the measurement tool, i.e. the specific risk elicitation method employed. We use a detailed experimental design to examine the stability and consistency of risk preferences using a hands-on learning experience. Our main goals are to assess how consistent risk choices are, understand how preferences remain stable or change over time, and evaluate the effectiveness of different elicitation methods like the Multiple Price List and Ordered Lottery Selection ones. On the one hand, results demonstrate that risk preferences are variable and adaptable, and this can be partly due to the role of experience-based learning. On the other hand, we observe how Multiple Price List methods, even if more complex, are more accurate in identifying risk preferences and then in improving measurement stability and accuracy.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Risk preferences; Experiments; Elicitation Methods; Learning.
• Subjects: D - Microeconomics > D8 - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty > D81 - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty; D - Microeconomics > D9 - Intertemporal Choice > D90 - General

References

Attanasi, G., Corazzini, L., Georgantz ́ıs, N., and Passarelli, F. (2014). Risk aversion, overconfidence and private information as determinants of majority thresholds. Pacific Economic Review, 19(3):355–386.

Attanasi, G., Georgantz ́ıs, N., Rotondi, V., and Vigani, D. (2018). Lottery-and survey-based risk attitudes linked through a multichoice elicitation task. Theory and Decision, 84:341–372.

Bernasconi, M., Corazzini, L., and Seri, R. (2014). Reference dependent preferences, hedonic adaptation and tax evasion: Does the tax burden matter? Journal of Economic Psychology, 40:103–118. Special Issue on Behavioral Dynamics of Tax Evasion.

Binswanger, H. P. (1980). Attitudes toward risk: Experimental measurement in rural india. American journal of agricultural economics, 62(3):395–407.

Binswanger, H. P. (1981). Attitudes toward risk: Theoretical implications of an experiment in rural india. The Economic Journal, 91(364):867–890.

Bradbury, M. A. S., Hens, T., and Zeisberger, S. (2015). Improving Investment Decisions with Simulated Experience*. Review of Finance, 19(3):1019–1052.

Charness, G. and Chemaya, N. (2023). Repeated experience and consistent risk preferences. Economics Letters, 233:111375.

Charness, G., Chemaya, N., and Trujano-Ochoa, D. (2023). Learning your own risk preferences. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 67(1):1–19.

Charness, G., Garcia, T., Offerman, T., and Villeval, M. C. (2020). Do measures of risk attitude in the laboratory predict behavior under risk in and outside of the laboratory? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 60:99–123.

Charness, G. and Gneezy, U. (2012). Strong evidence for gender differences in risk taking. Journal of Economic Behavior Organization, 83(1):50–58. Gender Differences in Risk Aversion and Competition.

Charness, G., Gneezy, U., and Imas, A. (2013). Experimental methods: Eliciting risk preferences. Journal of economic behavior and organization, 87:43–51.

Dave, C., Eckel, C. C., Johnson, C. A., and Rojas, C. (2010). Eliciting risk preferences: When is simple better? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 41:219–243.

Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., Sunde, U., Schupp, J., and Wagner, G. (2011). Individual risk attitudes: Measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. Journal of the European Economic Association, 9(3):522–550.

Eckel, C. C., El-Gamal, M. A., and Wilson, R. K. (2009). Risk loving after the storm: A bayesian network study of hurricane katrina evacuees. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 69(2):110–124.

Eckel, C. C. and Grossman, P. J. (2008). Forecasting risk attitudes: An experimental study using actual and forecast gamble choices. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 68(1):1–17.

Ert, E. and Haruvy, E. (2017). Revisiting risk aversion: Can risk preferences change with experience? Economics Letters, 151:91–95.

Falk, A., Becker, A., Dohmen, T., Enke, B., Huffman, D., and Sunde, U. (2018). Global Evidence on Economic Preferences*. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133(4):1645–1692.

Harris, C. R. and Jenkins, M. (2006). Gender differences in risk assessment: why do women take fewer risks than men? Judgment and Decision making, 1(1):48–63.

Harrison, G. W. and Rutstr ̈om, E. E. (2008). Risk Aversion in the Laboratory. In Risk Aversion in Experiments, Research in Experimental Economics, pages 41–196. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Hey, J. D. (2001). Does repetition improve consistency? Experimental economics, 4:5–54.

Hey, J. D. and Orme, C. (1994). Investigating generalizations of expected utility theory using experimental data. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, pages 1291–1326.

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

Holzmeister, F. and Stefan, M. (2021). The risk elicitation puzzle revisited: Across-methods (in) consistency? Experimental economics, 24:593–616.

Kaufmann, C., Weber, M., and Haisley, E. (2013). The role of experience sampling and graphical displays on one’s investment risk appetite. Management science, 59(2):323–340.

McClennen, E. (1990). Rationality and Dynamic Choice: Foundational Explorations. Paperback re-issue. Cambridge University Press.

Miller, L., Meyer, D. E., and Lanzetta, J. T. (1969). Choice among equal expected value alternatives: Sequential effects of winning probability level on risk preferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 79(3p1):419.

Pedroni, A., Frey, R., Bruhin, A., Dutilh, G., Hertwig, R., and Rieskamp, J. (2017). The risk elicitation puzzle. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(11):803–809.