What Can Multiple Price Lists Really Tell Us about Risk Preferences?

Drichoutis, Andreas and Lusk, Jayson (2012): What Can Multiple Price Lists Really Tell Us about Risk Preferences?

Abstract

Multiple price lists have emerged as a simple and popular method for eliciting risk preferences. Despite their popularity, a key downside of multiple price lists has not been widely recognized - namely that the approach is unlikely to generate sufficient information to accurately identify different dimensions of risk preferences. The most popular theories of decision making under risk posit that preference for risk are driven by a combination of two factors: the curvature of the utility function and the extent to which probabilities are weighted non-linearly. In this paper, we show that the widely used multiple price list introduced by Holt and Laury (2002) is likely more accurate at eliciting the latter, and we construct a different multiple price list that is likely more accurate at eliciting the former. We show that by combining information from different multiple price lists, greater predictive performance can be achieved.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: expected utility theory; multiple price list; probability weighting; rank dependent utility; risk
• Subjects: D - Microeconomics > D8 - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty > D81 - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C9 - Design of Experiments > C91 - Laboratory, Individual Behavior

References

Abdellaoui, M., A. Driouchi, and O. L'Haridon (2011). Risk aversion elicitation: reconciling tractability and bias minimization. Theory and Decision 71 (1), 63-80.

Andersen, S., G. W. Harrison, M. Lau, and E. E. Rutström (2011a). Multiattribute utility theory, intertemporal utility and correlation aversion. Center for the Economic Analysis of Risk, Working Paper 2011-04, Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University.

Andersen, S., G. W. Harrison, M. Lau, and E. E. Rutström (2013). Discounting behavior and the magnitude effect. Economica 80 (320), 670-697.

Andersen, S., G. W. Harrison, M. I. Lau, and E. E. Rutström (2006). Elicitation using multiple price list formats. Experimental Economics 9 (4), 383-405.

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

Andersen, S., G. W. Harrison, M. I. Lau, and E. E. Rutström (2011b). Discounting behavior: A reconsideration. Center for the Economic Analysis of Risk, Working Paper 2011-03, Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University.

Andreoni, J. and C. Sprenger (2012). Estimating time preferences from convex budgets. The American Economic Review 102 (7), 3333-3356.

Becker, G. M., M. H. Degroot, and J. Marschak (1964). Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behavioral Science 9 (3), 226-232.

Bellemare, C. and B. Shearer (2010). Sorting, incentives and risk preferences: Evidence from a field experiment. Economics Letters 108 (3), 345-348.

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. Economic Journal 91 (364), 867-890.

Bleichrodt, H. (2002). A new explanation for the difference between time trade-off utilities and standard gamble utilities. Health Economics 11 (5), 447-456.

Bosch-Domenech, A. and J. Silvestre (2013). Measuring risk aversion with lists: a new bias. Theory and Decision 75 (4), 465-496.

Bruner, D., M. McKee, and R. Santore (2008). Hand in the cookie jar: An experimental investigation of equity-based compensation and managerial fraud. Southern Economic Journal 75 (1), 261-278.

Bruner, D. M. (2009). Changing the probability versus changing the reward. Experimental Economics 12 (4), 367-385.

Camerer, C. F. and T.-H. Ho (1994). Violations of the betweenness axiom and nonlinearity in probability. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 8 (2), 167-196.

Cheung, S. L. (2013). On the elicitation of time preference under conditions of risk. American Economic Review (forthcoming).

Cohen, M., J.-Y. Ja_ray, and T. Said (1987). Experimental comparison of individual behavior under risk and under uncertainty for gains and for losses. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 39 (1), 1-22.

Conlisk, J. (1989). Three variants on the allais example. The American Economic Review 79 (3), 392-407.

Cox, J., V. Sadiraj, and U. Schmidt (2014). Paradoxes and mechanisms for choice under risk. Experimental Economics, 1-36.

Cox, J. C. and V. Sadiraj (2006). Small- and large-stakes risk aversion: Implications of concavity calibration for decision theory. Games and Economic Behavior 56 (1), 45-60.

Cubitt, R. P., C. Starmer, and R. Sugden (1998). On the validity of the random lottery incentive system. Experimental Economics 1 (2), 115-131.

Eckel, C. C. and R. K. Wilson (2004). Is trust a risky decision? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 55 (4), 447-465.

Erdem, T. (1996). A dynamic analysis of market structure based on panel data. Marketing Science 15 (4), 359-378.

Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics 10 (2), 171-178.

Glockner, A. and G. Hochman (2011). The interplay of experience-based a_ective and probabilistic cues in decision making. Experimental Psychology 58 (2), 132-141.

Greiner, B. (2004). An online recruitment system for economic experiments. In K. Kremer and V. Macho (Eds.), Forschung Und Wissenschaftliches Rechnen. Gwdg Bericht 63. Ges.Fr Wiss, pp. 79-93. Datenverarbeitung, Gttingen.

Harrison, G. W. (1994). Expected utility theory and the experimentalists. Empirical Economics 19 (2), 223-253.

Harrison, G. W., E. Johnson, M. M. McInnes, and E. E. Rutström (2005). Risk aversion and incentive e_ects: Comment. The American Economic Review 95 (3), 897-901.

Harrison, G. W., M. I. Lau, and E. E. Rutström (2009). Risk attitudes, randomization to treatment, and self-selection into experiments. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 70 (3), 498-507.

Harrison, G. W. and E. E. Rutström (2008). Risk aversion in the laboratory. In J. C. Cox and G. W. Harrison (Eds.), Research in Experimental Economics Vol 12: Risk Aversion in Experiments, Volume 12, pp. 41-196. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Harrison, G. W. and J. T. Swarthout (2012). The independence axiom and the bipolar behaviorist. Center for the Economic Analysis of Risk, Working Paper 2012-01, Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University.

Hey, J. D. and J. Lee (2005a). Do subjects remember the past? Applied Economics 37 (1), 9-18.

Hey, J. D. and J. Lee (2005b). Do subjects separate (or are they sophisticated)? Experimental Economics 8 (3), 233-265.

Holt, C. A. (1986). Preference reversals and the independence axiom. The American Economic Review 76 (3), 508-515.

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

Holt, C. A. and S. K. Laury (2005). Risk aversion and incentive e_ects: New data without order effects. The American Economic Review 95 (3), 902-904.

Lusk, J. L. and K. H. Coble (2005). Risk perceptions, risk preference, and acceptance of risky food. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87 (2), 393-405.

Miller, L., D. E. Meyer, and J. T. Lanzetta (1969). Choice among equal expected value alternatives: Sequential effects of winning probability level on risk preferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology 79 (3), 419-423.

Norwood, B. F., J. L. Lusk, and B. W. Brorsen (2004). Model selection for discrete dependent variables: Better statistics for better steaks. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 29 (3), 404-419.

Norwood, B. F., M. C. Roberts, and J. L. Lusk (2004). Ranking crop yield models using out-of-sample likelihood functions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86 (4), 1032-1043.

Palacios-Huerta, I. and R. Serrano (2006). Rejecting small gambles under expected utility. Economics Letters 91 (2), 250-259.

Prelec, D. (1998). The probability weighting function. Econometrica 66 (3), 497-528.

Quiggin, J. (1982). A theory of anticipated utility. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 3 (4), 323-343.

Rabin, M. (2000). Risk aversion and expected-utility theory: A calibration theorem. Econometrica 68 (5), 1281-1292.

Roy, R., P. K. Chintagunta, and S. Haldar (1996). A framework for investigating habits, "the hand of the past," and heterogeneity in dynamic brand choice. Marketing Science 15 (3), 280-299.

Rubinstein, A. (2006). Dilemmas of an economic theorist. Econometrica 74 (4), 865-883.

Saha, A. (1993). Expo-power utility: A exible form for absolute and relative risk aversion. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75 (4), 905-913.

Selten, R., A. Sadrieh, and K. Abbink (1999). Money does not induce risk neutral behavior, but binary lotteries do even worse. Theory and Decision 46 (3), 213-252.

Starmer, C. and R. Sugden (1991). Does the random-lottery incentive system elicit true preferences? An experimental investigation. The American Economic Review 81 (4), 971-978.

Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5 (4), 297-323.

Wakker, P. and D. Deneffe (1996). Eliciting von neumann-morgenstern utilities when probabilities are distorted or unknown. Management Science 42 (8), 1131-1150.

Wakker, P. P. (2007). Message to referees who want to embark on yet another discussion of the random-lottery incentive system for individual choice. Available at http://people.few.eur.nl/wakker/miscella/debates/randomlinc.htm.

Wakker, P. P. (2010). Prospect theory for risk and ambiguity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Watt, R. (2002). Defending expected utility theory. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 16 (2), 227-229.

Wu, G. and R. Gonzalez (1996). Curvature of the probability weighting function. Management Science 42 (12), 1676-1690.