[go: up one dir, main page]

IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea16/235876.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Social exchanges and attitudes toward uncertainty of different types of subjects: Experimental evidence from Bangladesh

Author

Listed:
  • Ahsanuzzaman
  • George, Norton
Abstract
The literature discusses risk aversion as one of the behavioral determinants of technology adoption. However, little attention has been paid to measuring ambiguity aversion of poor people in developing countries or in finding the role of ambiguity aversion in technology adoption. Risk experiments in the previous studies have been designed in such a way that individuals face the risky and/or ambiguous situations alone. Individuals in the real world, especially farmers in developing countries, are likely to get information from peers before making any decision regarding a new innovation that has an ambiguous nature. This paper addresses two broad issues. The first issue is to measure the risk and ambiguity preferences of Bangladeshi rural farmers. The paper investigates whether the attitudes toward uncertainty (risk and ambiguity) differ when farmers face the uncertainty alone versus when they are allowed to communicate with peer groups of 3 or 6. It also investigates whether farmers’ demographic characteristics affect their attitudes toward uncertainty or not. A second issue is to find whether measures of attitudes toward uncertainty is same across different groups of subjects using experimental lotteries. To do so, this paper replicates the same experiments with groups of students in two universities in Bangladesh. Finally, the paper also investigates whether demographic variables affect the attitudes toward risk and ambiguity aversion or not. It finds that risk attitudes of farmers and students are same when deciding alone. However, farmers tend to show higher variation in risk aversion than students sample when deciding in a group of 3. In the latter case, farmers tend to show less risk aversion than students. While disaggregating the measured risk attitudes across gender, female students tend to show more risk aversion as well as higher variation in risk aversion than male students in the sample. The study also finds that The study also finds that students’ and farmers’ demographic characteristics affect both risk and ambiguity aversion.

Suggested Citation

  • Ahsanuzzaman & George, Norton, 2016. "Social exchanges and attitudes toward uncertainty of different types of subjects: Experimental evidence from Bangladesh," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235876, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea16:235876
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.235876
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/235876/files/Poster-RisknAmbiguitySubjects_Ahsanuzzaman-Norton.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.235876?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Kaywana Raeburn & Sonia Laszlo & Jim Warnick, 2023. "Resolving ambiguity as a public good: experimental evidence from Guyana," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 95(1), pages 79-107, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Institutional and Behavioral Economics; International Development; Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies; Risk and Uncertainty;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:aaea16:235876. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.