[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolet/v160y2017icp24-28.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Small stakes risk aversion in the laboratory: A reconsideration

Author

Listed:
  • Harrison, Glenn W.
  • Lau, Morten I.
  • Ross, Don
  • Swarthout, J. Todd
Abstract
Evidence of risk aversion in laboratory settings over small stakes leads to a priori implausible levels of risk aversion over large stakes under certain assumptions. One core assumption in statements of this calibration puzzle is that small-stakes risk aversion is observed over all levels of wealth, or over a “sufficiently large” range of wealth. Although this assumption is viewed as self-evident from the vast experimental literature showing risk aversion over laboratory stakes, it actually requires that lab wealth be varied for a given subject as one evaluates the risk attitudes of the subject. We consider evidence from a simple design that tests this assumption, and find that the assumption is strikingly rejected for a large sample of subjects from a population of college students. We conclude that the implausible predictions that flow from these assumptions do not apply to one specialized population widely used to study economic behavior in laboratory experiments.

Suggested Citation

  • Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten I. & Ross, Don & Swarthout, J. Todd, 2017. "Small stakes risk aversion in the laboratory: A reconsideration," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 24-28.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:160:y:2017:i:c:p:24-28
    DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2017.08.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165176517303269
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.econlet.2017.08.003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zvi Safra & Uzi Segal, 2008. "Calibration Results for Non-Expected Utility Theories," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 76(5), pages 1143-1166, September.
    2. J. Hirshleifer, 1966. "Investment Decision Under Uncertainty: Applications of the State-Preference Approach," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 80(2), pages 252-277.
    3. Cox, James C. & Sadiraj, Vjollca, 2006. "Small- and large-stakes risk aversion: Implications of concavity calibration for decision theory," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 45-60, July.
    4. James C. Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj, 2008. "Risky decisions in the large and in the small: Theory and experiment," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Risk Aversion in Experiments, pages 9-40, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    5. Palacios-Huerta, Ignacio & Serrano, Roberto, 2006. "Rejecting small gambles under expected utility," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 250-259, May.
    6. James Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj & Ulrich Schmidt, 2015. "Paradoxes and mechanisms for choice under risk," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(2), pages 215-250, June.
    7. Nicholas Barberis & Ming Huang & Richard H. Thaler, 2006. "Individual Preferences, Monetary Gambles, and Stock Market Participation: A Case for Narrow Framing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(4), pages 1069-1090, September.
    8. Matthew Rabin, 2000. "Risk Aversion and Expected-Utility Theory: A Calibration Theorem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(5), pages 1281-1292, September.
    9. Gallant, A Ronald & Nychka, Douglas W, 1987. "Semi-nonparametric Maximum Likelihood Estimation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(2), pages 363-390, March.
    10. Richard Watt, 2002. "Defending Expected Utility Theory: Comment," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(2), pages 227-229, Spring.
    11. James Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj & Bodo Vogt & Utteeyo Dasgupta, 2013. "Is there a plausible theory for decision under risk? A dual calibration critique," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 54(2), pages 305-333, October.
    12. Laura Schechter, 2007. "Risk aversion and expected-utility theory: A calibration exercise," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 67-76, August.
    13. K. J. Arrow, 1964. "The Role of Securities in the Optimal Allocation of Risk-bearing," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 31(2), pages 91-96.
    14. William Neilson, 2001. "Calibration results for rank-dependent expected utility," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(10), pages 1-5.
    15. Glenn Harrison & J. Swarthout, 2014. "Experimental payment protocols and the Bipolar Behaviorist," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(3), pages 423-438, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Glenn W. Harrison, 2024. "Risk preferences and risk perceptions in insurance experiments: some methodological challenges," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 49(1), pages 127-161, March.
    2. Fakir, Adnan M.S., 2021. "Schooling and small stakes risk aversion: Insights from a rural-poor community," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    3. Glenn W. Harrison & Jia Min Ng, 2019. "Behavioral insurance and economic theory: A literature review," Risk Management and Insurance Review, American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 22(2), pages 133-182, July.
    4. William G. Morrison & Robert J. Oxoby, 2022. "Asset integration and risk‐taking in the laboratory," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(3), pages 1460-1479, August.
    5. Nicolas Pasquier & Olivier Bonroy & Alexis Garapin, 2022. "Risk aversion and equilibrium selection in a vertical contracting setting: an experiment," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 93(4), pages 585-614, November.
    6. Embrey, Matthew & Hyndman, Kyle & Riedl, Arno, 2021. "Bargaining with a residual claimant: An experimental study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 335-354.
    7. Robert Oxoby & William G. Morrison, "undated". "Asset Integration, Risk Taking and Loss Aversion in the Laboratory," Working Papers 2019-04, Department of Economics, University of Calgary, revised 30 Jan 2019.
    8. Stefan A. Lipman & Arthur E. Attema, 2019. "Rabin's paradox for health outcomes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(8), pages 1064-1071, August.
    9. Siebert, Jan, 2020. "Are the poor more impatient than the rich? Experimental evidence on the effect of (lab) wealth on intertemporal preferences," Ruhr Economic Papers 845, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    10. Adnan M. S. Fakir & Tushar Bharati, 2021. "Healthy, nudged, and wise: Experimental evidence on the role of cost reminders in healthy decision-making," Economics Discussion / Working Papers 21-13, The University of Western Australia, Department of Economics.
    11. Aj A Bostian & Christoph Heinzel, 2020. "Robustness of Inferences in Risk and Time Experiments to Lifecycle Asset Integration," Post-Print hal-03358620, HAL.
    12. Glenn W. Harrison & Jia Min Ng, 2018. "Welfare effects of insurance contract non-performance," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 43(1), pages 39-76, May.
    13. Grable, John E. & Lyons, Angela C. & Heo, Wookjae, 2019. "A test of traditional and psychometric relative risk tolerance measures on household financial risk taking," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 8-13.
    14. Han Bleichrodt & Jason N. Doctor & Yu Gao & Chen Li & Daniella Meeker & Peter P. Wakker, 2019. "Resolving Rabin’s paradox," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 59(3), pages 239-260, December.
    15. Adnan M. S. Fakir & Tushar Bharati, 2022. "Healthy, nudged, and wise: Experimental evidence on the role of information salience in reducing tobacco intake," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(6), pages 1129-1166, June.
    16. Glenn W. Harrison & J. Todd Swarthout, 2016. "Cumulative Prospect Theory in the Laboratory: A Reconsideration," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2016-04, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    17. Giannikos, Christos I. & Kakolyris, Andreas & Suen, Tin Shan, 2023. "Prospect theory and a manager's decision to trade a blind principal bid basket," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    18. Glenn W. Harrison, 2019. "The behavioral welfare economics of insurance," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 44(2), pages 137-175, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Steffen Andersen & James C. Cox & Glenn W. Harrison & Morten Lau & Elisabet E. Rutstroem & Vjollca Sadiraj, 2011. "Asset Integration and Attitudes to Risk: Theory and Evidence," Department of Economics Working Papers 2011_10, Durham University, Department of Economics.
    2. Han Bleichrodt & Jason N. Doctor & Yu Gao & Chen Li & Daniella Meeker & Peter P. Wakker, 2019. "Resolving Rabin’s paradox," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 59(3), pages 239-260, December.
    3. Johansson-Stenman, Olof, 2010. "Risk aversion and expected utility of consumption over time," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 208-219, January.
    4. Sergio Sousa, 2010. "Small-scale changes in wealth and attitudes toward risk," Discussion Papers 2010-11, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    5. Zambrano, Eduardo, 2020. "Risk attitudes over small and large stakes recalibrated," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    6. James Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj & Bodo Vogt & Utteeyo Dasgupta, 2013. "Is there a plausible theory for decision under risk? A dual calibration critique," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 54(2), pages 305-333, October.
    7. Sergio Sousa, 2010. "Small-scale changes in wealth and attitudes toward risk," Discussion Papers 2010-11, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    8. Haug, Jørgen & Hens, Thorsten & Woehrmann, Peter, 2013. "Risk aversion in the large and in the small," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 310-313.
    9. Laura Schechter, 2007. "Risk aversion and expected-utility theory: A calibration exercise," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 67-76, August.
    10. Matthew Rabin & Georg Weizsacker, 2009. "Narrow Bracketing and Dominated Choices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(4), pages 1508-1543, September.
    11. Xiaosheng Mu & Luciano Pomatto & Philipp Strack & Omer Tamuz, 2020. "Background risk and small-stakes risk aversion," Papers 2010.08033, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2021.
    12. Fafchamps, Marcel & Kebede, Bereket & Zizzo, Daniel John, 2015. "Keep up with the winners: Experimental evidence on risk taking, asset integration, and peer effects," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 59-79.
    13. Alma Cohen & Liran Einav, 2007. "Estimating Risk Preferences from Deductible Choice," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(3), pages 745-788, June.
    14. Andreas C. Drichoutis & Jayson L. Lusk, 2016. "What can multiple price lists really tell us about risk preferences?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 89-106, December.
    15. Michal Lewandowski, 2014. "Buying and selling price for risky lotteries and expected utility theory with gambling wealth," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 253-283, June.
    16. Ellis, Andrew & Freeman, David J., 2024. "Revealing choice bracketing," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 125470, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Michał Lewandowski, 2017. "Prospect Theory Versus Expected Utility Theory: Assumptions, Predictions, Intuition and Modelling of Risk Attitudes," Central European Journal of Economic Modelling and Econometrics, Central European Journal of Economic Modelling and Econometrics, vol. 9(4), pages 275-321, December.
    18. Stephen LeRoy, 2003. "Expected utility: a defense," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 7(7), pages 1-3.
    19. Aj A Bostian & Christoph Heinzel, 2020. "Robustness of Inferences in Risk and Time Experiments to Lifecycle Asset Integration," Post-Print hal-03358620, HAL.
    20. Zvi Safra & Uzi Segal, 2005. "Are Universal Preferences Possible? Calibration Results for Non-Expected Utility Theories," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 633, Boston College Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Risk aversion; Calibration puzzle; Laboratory experiments;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:160:y:2017:i:c:p:24-28. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolet .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.