Heterogeneity in life-duration preferences: Are risky recreationists really more risk loving?

Riddel, Mary; Kolstoe, Sonja

doi:10.1007/s11166-013-9161-0

Cited by 9 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The mean risk aversion coefficient is 0.685, indicating that the average subject is modestly life‐duration risk averse. This value is similar to that found in other studies (Riddel & Kolstoe, ). For the most part, the demographics compare reasonably well to the U.S. population.…”

Section: Health History and Objective Rrs From Hcrisupporting

confidence: 93%

“…We used a sequential price list auction to elicit a risk‐aversion coefficient based on the constant relative risk aversion utility function defined over life‐duration risk. Details on the exact choice list can be found in Riddel and Kolstoe (). Briefly, the following text was presented to the subjects: Hypothetical Health Risk: Assume you have been diagnosed with a disease that will certainly be fatal in a year without treatment.…”

Section: The Surveymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Predicting Cancer‐Prevention Behavior: Disentangling the Effects of Risk Aversion and Risk Perceptions

Riddel

Hales

2018

Risk Analysis

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Experimental and survey research spanning the last two decades concludes that people who are more risk tolerant are more likely to engage in risky health activities such as smoking and heavy alcohol consumption, and are more likely to be obese. Subjective perceptions of the risk associated with different activities have also been found to be associated with health behaviors. While there are numerous studies that link risk perceptions with risky behavior, it is notable that none of these controls for risk aversion. Similarly, studies that control for risk aversion fail to control for risk misperceptions. We use a survey of 474 men and women to investigate the influence of risk aversion, risk misperceptions, and cognitive ability on the choice to engage in behaviors that either increase or mitigate cancer risk. We measure optimism in two dimensions: baseline optimists are those who inaccurately believe their cancer risk to be below its expert-assessed level, while control optimists are those who believe they can reduce their risk of cancer (by changing their lifestyle choices) to a greater extent than is actually the case. Our results indicate that baseline optimism is significantly and negatively correlated with subjects' tendencies to engage in cancer-risk-reducing behaviors, and positively correlated with risky behaviors. Subjects' control misperceptions also appear to play a role in their tendency to engage in risky and prevention behaviors. When controlling for both of these types of risk misperception, risk aversion plays a much smaller role in determining health behaviors than found in past studies.

show abstract

Section: Health History and Objective Rrs From Hcrisupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: The Surveymentioning

confidence: 99%

Predicting Cancer‐Prevention Behavior: Disentangling the Effects of Risk Aversion and Risk Perceptions

Riddel

Hales

2018

Risk Analysis

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ó 2016 The Agricultural Economics Society which is supported by Riddel and Kolstoe (2013) amongst others. Table 7 presents predictive performance statistics for the three decision functions for individual level models.…”

Section: Considering Heterogeneity: Models For Individual Responsesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On a predictive basis, individual models using the RDU (both for CRRA and EP utility functions) and CPT functions performed considerably better than those based on the EU(CRRA) decision function, indicating that sample level models are unlikely to provide relevant information on decision functions at the individual level – a result which is supported by Riddel and Kolstoe () amongst others. Table presents predictive performance statistics for the three decision functions for individual level models.…”

Section: Considering Heterogeneity: Models For Individual Responsesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk Behaviours and Grazing Land Management: A Framed Field Experiment and Linkages to Range Land Condition

Gregg¹,

Rolfe²

2016

J Agricultural Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We use a framed field experiment considering hypothetical stocking rate decisions made by grazing enterprise managers and estimate non‐linear multinomial logit models for a range of nested non‐expected utility and expected utility models. The risk and decision‐bias parameters for five models estimated for individual responses are shown to be significantly related to land condition but in ways which suggest behavioural aspects of decision making are critical in understanding land management and stocking rate decisions. Our results show that individual heterogeneity in decision making amongst farming groups is likely to be a significant source of variation in farming intensity and technology adoption decisions. This heterogeneity does not appear to be a reflection of socio‐demographic characteristics. Furthermore, decision functions appear to be biased toward selection of simpler representative functions (e.g. Expected Utility) for sample averages. This suggests that experimental findings that Expected Utility is representative for actual decisions may be due to sample averaging rather than reflect actual behaviour.

show abstract

“…Before concluding this review of relevant papers, it is very important to note that Riddel and Kolstoe () do estimate preference functions for amateur auto racers, technical rock climbers, and SCUBA divers to explore whether the choice to engage in risky activities can be explained (1) by a risk‐tolerant utility function or (2) by rational weighting of low‐probability events. Their approach is not a recreation demand model that uses revealed preference (i.e., trip taking).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Valuing the Benefits of Rock Climbing and the Welfare Gains from Decreasing Injury Risk

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rock climbing is an increasingly popular recreation activity worldwide, nevertheless there are only few studies that estimate the demand for it. In this article the Kuhn-Tucker approach is used to estimate the demand for rock climbing in Sicily, the recreation value of different climbing sites, and the welfare impact of reducing injury risk. In modeling the demand for climbing we account for the heterogeneity of preferences. We find that decreasing the level of injury risk generates remarkable welfare gains to climbers. This is the first study we know of that provides a welfare measure of risk reduction in rock climbing and one of a very few studies in environmental economics that uses a revealed preference approach to estimate a welfare measure associated with a reduction in risk.

show abstract

Heterogeneity in life-duration preferences: Are risky recreationists really more risk loving?

Cited by 9 publications

References 33 publications

Predicting Cancer‐Prevention Behavior: Disentangling the Effects of Risk Aversion and Risk Perceptions

Predicting Cancer‐Prevention Behavior: Disentangling the Effects of Risk Aversion and Risk Perceptions

Risk Behaviours and Grazing Land Management: A Framed Field Experiment and Linkages to Range Land Condition

Valuing the Benefits of Rock Climbing and the Welfare Gains from Decreasing Injury Risk

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About