Risk Aversion Relates to Cognitive Ability: Preferences or Noise?

Abstract

Recent experimental studies suggest that risk aversion is negatively related to cognitive ability. In this paper we report evidence that this relation may be spurious. We recruit a large subject pool drawn from the general Danish population for our experiment. By presenting subjects with choice tasks that vary the bias induced by random choices, we are able to generate both negative and positive correlations between risk aversion and cognitive ability. Our results suggest that cognitive ability is related to random decision making rather than to risk preferences. (JEL: C81, C91, D12, D81)

How to Reveal People's Preferences: Comparing Time Consistency and Predictive Power of Multiple Price List Risk Elicitation Methods

“…De Véricourt et al (2013) in the newsvendor setting, Murnighan et al (1988) in bargaining, Beck (1994) in redistribution or Tanaka et al (2010) in linking experimental data to household income, to name just a few. Moreover, several papers try to shed light on the causes of risk-seeking and riskaverse behavior in the general population with laboratory (Harrison and Rutström 2008), internet (Von Gaudecker et al 2011) and field experiments (Andersson et al 2016;Harrison et al 2007). Since the seminal papers by Laury (2002, 2005), approximately 20 methods have been published which provide alternatives to elicit risk preferences.…”

Determinants of Risk Aversion Over Time: Experimental Evidence from Rural Thailand

“…where people seem to be attracted by the safe payoff of a round figure which is 100 Baht. Andersson et al, 2016). Comparing all three distributions together, risk preferences do not seem to remain stable over time.…”

Allais for the poor: Relations to ability, information processing, and risk attitudes

“…It seems thus important trying to control for cognitive ability (see, e.g., Burks et al, 2009). Similarly, it has been argued that risk taking is positively related to cognitive ability (see Benjamin et al, 2013), although this has been challenged by Andersson et al (2016). We do explicitly control for cognitive ability here but the price is that we have to work with a much smaller sample.…”