A Theoretical and Experimental Appraisal of Five Risk Elicitation Methods

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in AbstractWe perform a comparative analysis of five incentivized tasks used to elicit risk preferences. Theoretically, we compare the elicitation methods in terms of completeness of the range of the estimates as well as their precision, the likelihood of triggering loss aversion, and problems arising when multiple choices are required. Using original data from a homogeneous population, we experimentally investigate the distribution of estimated risk preferences, whether they differ by gender, and the complexity of the tasks. We do so using both non-parametric tests and a structural model estimated with maximum likelihood. We find that the estimated risk aversion parameters vary greatly across tasks and that gender differences appear only when the task is more likely to trigger loss aversion. JEL Classifications: C81; C91; D81

Three Risk-elicitation Methods in the Field: Evidence from Rural Senegal

“…For reviews of previous work, we refer the interested reader to Offerman et al (2009), Dave et al (2010), and Crosetto and Filippin (2013). Charness, Gneezy, and Imas (2013) provide an in-depth discussion of the general issues involved with eliciting risk preferences.…”

Gender

“…More recently, Crosetto and Filippin (2013b) consider a between subject design where subjects do one of the following five incentivized risk measures: The Holt-Laury multiple price list, the Eckel Grossman task, the Gneezy-Potters investment game, the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (Lejuez et al, 2002) or the Bomb Risk Elicitation task (Crosetto and Filippin, 2013a). 67 Every subject also answers the SOEP risk question described above, and the DOSPERT ( …”

“…They report that the sizeable gender gap in choices observed by Eckel and Grossman (2002) in the Eckel-Grossman (EG) task also appear in replications of this task. They cite six papers coauthored by Catherine Eckel, as well as by Crosetto and Filippin (2013b) and Wik et al (2004). Buser, Niederle and Oosterbeek (2014) described in Section II administer an EG task to almost 400 fifteen year old Dutch school children and also find significant gender differences in risk taking.…”

Determinants of Rice Farmers’ Risk-attitudes in Rural Ghana: An Operational Domain Scale Approach

“…In their research titled "A theoretical and experimental appraisal of five risk elicitation methods", Crosetto and Filippin (2013) concluded that the best task for risk elicitation is one that is most in line with the experimenter's aims. What is important is to be aware of the different dimensions along which the tasks differ.…”