LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Alexy, Martin; Georgantzis, Nikos; Kácer, Marek; Péliová, Jana (2016)
Publisher: Slovak Academy of Sciences
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:
We focus on the comparison of risk attitudes elicited through three different procedures with the goal to analyse the consistency of risk attitudes. Rank correlations are utilized to measure the degree of association of the subjects’ choices and principal component analysis is employed to find the main factors describing the specific characteristics of risk attributes. We observe patterns of consistency in risk attitudes between two methods and within the selected multidimensional method, too. We find an evidence that gender and subjects’ cognitive abilities play a certain role in the consistency of risk attitudes. Participants’ choices in popular Holt and Laury method and the other two methods show nearly no relation. The principal component analysis supports the validity of the distinctive nature of the three risk elicitation methods. We also identify another aspect which is common in the different risk context; we call it the payoff risk sensitivity.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • ABDELLAOUI, M. - DRIOUCHI, A. - L'HARIDON, O. (2011): Risk Aversion Elicitation: Reconciling Tractability and Bias Minimization. Theory and Decision, 71, No. 1, pp. 63 - 80.
    • BALÁŽ, V. - BAČOVÁ, V. - DROBNÁ, E. - DUDEKOVÁ, K. - ADAMÍK, K. (2013): Testing Prospect Theory Parameters. Ekonomický časopis/Journal of Economics, 61, No. 7, pp. 655 - 671.
    • BECKER, G. - DeGROOT, M. - MARSCHAK, J. (1964): Measuring Utility by a Single-response Sequential Method. Behavioral Science, 9, No. 3, pp. 226 - 236.
    • BOSCH-DOMÈNECH, A. - SILVESTRE, J. (2006): Reflections on Gains and Losses: A 2x2x7 Experiment. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 33, No. 3, pp. 217 - 235.
    • BOSCH-DOMÈNECH, A. - SILVESTRE, J. (2013): Measuring Risk Aversion with Lists: A New Bias. Theory and Decision, 75, No. 4, pp. 465 - 496.
    • BRAÑAS-GARZA, P. - GUILLEN, P. - LOPEZ del PASO, R. (2008): Math Skills and Risk Attitudes. Economics Letters, Elsevier, 99, No. 2, pp. 332 - 336.
    • BRUNER, D. (2009): Changing the Probability versus Changing the Reward. Experimental Economics, 12, No. 4, pp. 367 - 385.
    • BYRNES, J. P. - MILLER, D. C. - SCHAFER, W. D. (1999): Gender Differences in Risk Taking: A Meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125, No. 3, pp. 367 - 383.
    • CHARNESS, G. - VILLEVAL, M.-C. (2009): Cooperation and Competition in Intergenerational Experiments in the Field and the Laboratory. American Economic Review, 99, No. 3, pp. 956 - 978.
    • COX, J. C. - ROBERSON, B. - SMITH, V. L. (1982): Theory and Behavior of Single Object Auctions. In: SMITH, V. L. (ed.): Research in Experimental Economics, Vol. 2. Greenwich: JAI Press.
    • CROSETTO, P. - FILIPPIN, A. (2013a): The “Bomb” Risk Elicitation Task. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 47, No. 1, pp. 31 - 65.
    • CROSETTO, P. - FILIPPIN, A. (2013b): A Theoretical and Experimental Appraisal of Five Risk Elicitation Methods. [Jena Economic Research Papers, No. 2013 - 009.] Jena: Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    • DECK, C. - LEE, J. - REYES, J. - ROSEN, C. (2013): A Failed Attempt to Explain within Subject Variation in Risk Taking Behavior Using Domain Specific Risk Attitudes. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 87, No. 1, pp. 1 - 24.
    • DECK, C. - LEE, J. - REYES, J. - ROSEN, C. (2010): Measuring Risk Aversion on Multiple Tasks: Can Domain Specific Risk Attitudes Explain Apparently Inconsistent Behavior. [Working Paper.] Fayetteville: University of Arkansas.
    • ECKEL, C. C. - GROSSMAN, P. J. (2002): Sex Differences and Statistical Stereotyping in Attitudes Toward Financial Risk. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, No. 4, pp. 281 - 295.
    • EPSTEIN, S. (1994): Integration of the Cognitive and Psychodynamic Unconscious. American Psychologist, 49, No. 8, pp. 709 - 724.
    • FREDERICK, S. (2005): Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, No. 4, pp. 25 - 42.
    • GARCÍA-GALLEGO, A. - GEORGANTZÍS, N. - JARAMILLO-GUTIÉRREZ, A. - PARRAVANO, M. (2012): The Lottery-panel Task for Bi-dimensional Parameter-free Elicitation of Risk Attitudes. Revista Internacional de Sociología, Special Issue on Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 70, No. 1, pp. 53 - 72.
    • GARCÍA-GALLEGO, A. - GEORGANTZÍS, N. - NAVARRO-MARTÍNEZ, D. - SABATERGRANDE, G. (2011): The Stochastic Component in Choice and Regression to the Mean. Theory and Decision, 71, No. 2, pp. 251 - 267.
    • GNEEZY, U. - POTTERS, J. (1997): An Experiment on Risk Taking and Evaluation Periods. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, No. 2, pp. 631 - 645.
    • HARBAUGH, W. - KRAUSE, K. - VESTERLUND, L. (2010): The Fourfold Pattern of Risk Attitudes in Choice and Pricing Tasks. The Economic Journal, 120, No. 545, pp. 595 - 611.
    • HARRISON, G. W. (1990): Risk Attitudes in First-Price Auction Experiments: A Bayesian Analysis. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 72, No. 3, pp. 541 - 546.
    • HEINEMANN, F. - NAGEL, R. - OCKENFELS, P. (2009): Measuring Strategic Uncertainty in Coordination Games. Review of Economic Studies, 76, No. 1, pp. 181 - 221.
    • HOLT, C. - LAURY, S. (2002): Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects. American Economic Review, 92, No. 5, pp. 1644 - 1655.
    • ISAAC, R. - JAMES, D. (2000): Just who are You Calling Risk Averse? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 20, No. 2, pp. 177 - 187.
    • KAHNEMAN, D. (2003): Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics. American Economic Review, 93, No. 5, pp. 1449 - 1475.
    • KAHNEMAN, D. - TVERSKY, A. (1979): Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47, No. 2, pp. 263 - 291.
    • LEJUEZ, C. - READ, J. - KAHLER, C. - RICHARDS, J. - RAMSEY, S. - STUART, G. - STRONG, D. - BROWN, R. (2002): Evaluation of a Behavioral Measure of Risk Taking: The Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8, No. 2, pp. 75 - 84.
    • REYNAUD, A. - COUTURE, S. (2012): Stability of Risk Preference Measures: Tesults from a Field Experiment on French Farmers. Theory and Decision, 73, No. 2, pp. 203 - 221.
    • SABATER-GRANDE, G. - GEORGANTZÍS, N. (2002): Accounting for Risk Aversion in Repeated Prisoners' Dilemma Games: An Experimental Test. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 48, No. 1, pp. 37 - 50.
    • SLOMAN, S. A. (1996): The Empirical Case for Two Systems of Reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119, No. 1, pp. 3 - 22.
    • STANOVICH, K. E. - WEST, R. F. (2000): Individual Differences in Reasoning: Implications for the Rationality Debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, No. 5, pp. 645 - 726.
    • Von NEUMANN, J. - MORGENSTERN, O. (1944): Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article