How people know their risk preference

Abstract

People differ in their willingness to take risks. Recent work found that revealed preference tasks (e.g., laboratory lotteries)—a dominant class of measures—are outperformed by survey-based stated preferences, which are more stable and predict real-world risk taking across different domains. How can stated preferences, often criticised as inconsequential “cheap talk,” be more valid and predictive than controlled, incentivized lotteries? In our multimethod study, over 3,000 respondents from population samples answered a single widely used and predictive risk-preference question. Respondents then explained the reasoning behind their answer. They tended to recount diagnostic behaviours and experiences, focusing on voluntary, consequential acts and experiences from which they seemed to infer their risk preference. We found that third-party readers of respondents’ brief memories and explanations reached similar inferences about respondents’ preferences, indicating the intersubjective validity of this information. Our results help unpack the self perception behind stated risk preferences that permits people to draw upon their own understanding of what constitutes diagnostic behaviours and experiences, as revealed in high-stakes situations in the real world.

Wearing a mask—For yourself or for others? Behavioral correlates of mask wearing among COVID-19 frontline workers

“…Below, we provide a description of the independent variables of interest. The measures for self-reported risk preference and altruism have been extensively validated in previous studies [43,47,48].…”

Associations Between Self-reported Inhibitory Control, Stress, and Alcohol (Mis)use During the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic in the UK: a National Cross-sectional Study Utilising Data From Four Birth Cohorts

“…A similar single-item scale of risk preference, known as the General Risk Question (GRQ) (Dohmen et al, 2011 ), has been used extensively and has been included in several widely analysed surveys, such as the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey (Watson & Wooden, 2012 ), and the Understanding Society Survey (Institute for Social and Economic Research, 2018 ). Recent work suggests that the self-report (e.g., GRQ) assessment of risk-taking oftentimes outperforms behavioural assessments (e.g., laboratory lotteries) due to self-report assessments taking subjective internal states, such as regret or need, into account (Arslan et al, 2020 ). Moreover, during the development of the Global Preferences Survey (Falk et al, 2018 ) — which was conducted to investigate risk and time (patience) preferences — Falk et al (Falk et al, 2016 ) experimentally validated their measures by (among other things) assessing the association between single-item assessments and behavioural measures of the same constructs through Spearman’s correlations and linear regression models.…”

The closer I am, the safer I feel: The “distance proximity effect” of COVID‐19 pandemic on individuals' risk assessment and irrational consumption

“…We showcase that the distance proximity effect is associated with important downstream consequences such as panic buying. As such, we offer some timely knowledge regarding the understanding of consumers' panic buying behavior under pandemics, such as the current critical situation of COVID‐19 (e.g., Arslan et al, 2020 ; Naeem, 2021 ). We also answer the call by prior scholars on more research on panic buying from the perspective of crisis management (Billore & Anisimova, 2021 ).…”