Risk aversion and physical prowess: Prediction, choice and bias

Ball, Sheryl; Eckel, Catherine C.; Heracleous, Maria

doi:10.1007/s11166-010-9105-x

Cited by 54 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar findings emerge in the EG task, with sizable gender differences appearing both in the original experiment and in later replications (Arya et al, 2012;Ball et al, 2010;Crosetto and Filippin, 2013b;Dave et al, 2010;Eckel et al, 2009Eckel et al, , 2011Grossman and Eckel, 2009;Wik et al, 2004). Cleave et al (2010) find a gender gap in a wide sample but not in a subsample that participated to later experiments, but it is, to the best of our knowledge, the only exception.…”

Section: Literature Reviewsupporting

confidence: 53%

A Reconsideration of Gender Differences in Risk Attitudes

Filippin

Crosetto

2014

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reconsiders the wide agreement that females are more risk averse than males. We survey the existing experimental literature, finding that significance and magnitude of gender differences are task-specific. We gather data from 54 Holt and Laury (2002) replications, involving more than 7000 subjects. Gender differences appear in less than 10% of the studies, and are significant but negligible in magnitude once all the data are pooled. We exclude that this result is driven by noisier HL data. Gender differences appear to correlate with the presence of a safe option and fixed probabilities in the elicitation method. JEL Classifications: C81; C91; D81

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewsupporting

confidence: 53%

A Reconsideration of Gender Differences in Risk Attitudes

Filippin

Crosetto

2014

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…How people predict what others will choose has been extensively studied, using models that include anchoring and adjustment, false consensus, mindreading, similarity-contingency, social projection, and stereotyping (Ames 2004;Ball et al 2010;Goldman 2006;Van Boven et al 2005;Viscusi et al 2011). How predictions of others' choices are related to one's own choices has also been widely studied (see Faro and Rottenstreich 2006;Hsee and Weber 1997, and their references).…”

Section: Predicting Others' Choicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving one’s choices by putting oneself in others’ shoes – An experimental analysis

Rohde

Wakker

2017

J Risk Uncertain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates how letting people predict others' choices under risk affects subsequent own choices. We find an improvement of strong rationality (risk neutrality) for losses in own choices, but no such improvement for gains. There is no improvement of weak rationality (avoiding preference reversals). Overall, risk aversion in own choices increases. Conversely, for the effects of own choices on predicting for others, the risk aversion predicted in others' choices is reduced if preceded by own choices, for both gains and losses. Remarkably, we find a new probability matching paradox at the group level. Relative to preceding studies on the effects of predicting others' choices, we added real incentives, pure framing effects, and simplicity of stimuli. Our stimuli were maximally targeted towards our research questions.

show abstract

“…The lottery choice was taken from a large-scale field experiment [27], and is similar to the elicitation developed by [28], which has been widely adopted in the experimental literature [29]. Participants were shown the six lotteries in Figure 1 and asked to choose one.…”

Section: Experimental Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revenue Implications of Strategic and External Auction Risk

Robbett

Graham

Matthews

2016

Games

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experimental treatments are used to study the effects of auction risk across five mechanisms. The first canonical, baseline treatment features only strategic risk and replicates the standard results that overbidding relative to the risk neutral Nash equilibrium is prevalent in all common auction mechanisms except for the English auction. We do not find evidence that bidders' measured risk preferences can explain these patterns of overbidding. To enhance salience, we introduce a second novel treatment with external risk. This treatment captures the risk, prevalent in online auctions, that winners will not receive a good of value. We find that dynamic auctions-including the English-are particularly susceptible to overbidding in this environment. We note that overbidding is somewhat diminished in later periods and that our results may thus have particular relevance for bidders who are not highly experienced or who have not directly experienced losses. We conclude with a brief discussion of research implications.

show abstract

Risk aversion and physical prowess: Prediction, choice and bias

Abstract: Risk aversion, Physical risk, Experiment, Gender, Stereotyping, C91, D8, J16,

Cited by 54 publications

References 43 publications

A Reconsideration of Gender Differences in Risk Attitudes

A Reconsideration of Gender Differences in Risk Attitudes

Improving one’s choices by putting oneself in others’ shoes – An experimental analysis

Revenue Implications of Strategic and External Auction Risk

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About