Eliciting risk preferences: When is simple better?

By Chetan Dave, Catherine C. Eckel, Cathleen Johnson, Christian Rojas. 2010

500 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, General Decision Sciences, Safety Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6f17f5cbb7e77f5e97e87315a142de9ada461bdd

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In General Decision Sciences

In Safety Research

Citations in the corpus

A comprehensive comparison of students and non-students in classic experimental games (2015, methodology): “Since we expect non-students to be quite heterogeneous in their mathematical ability, we chose a simple strategy method to elicit risk preferences (Dave et al., 2010).”
Risk aversion relates to cognitive ability: Preferences or Noise? (2016, background): “Prior research shows that people differ in their propensities to make mistakes when choosing between risky prospects (e.g. Harless and Camerer 1994; Hey and Orme 1994), and that error propensities vary with observable characteristics (Dave et al. 2010; von Gaudecker, van Soest and Wengström 2011).”
Trust, Risk, and Time Preferences After a Natural Disaster: Experimental Evidence from Thailand (2017, methodology): “One methodological note is that there has been a move to use simpler and easier to understand methods to elicit risk preferences (see Dave et al., 2010).”
The “bomb” risk elicitation task (2013, unknown): “Therefore, it is well positioned in the trade-off, as explored by Dave et al. (2010), between precision and understandability since it features both a fine-grained measure of risk preferences and a simple and intuitive design. The BRET also has several theoretical advantages. First, it does not suff”
Experimental methods: Eliciting risk preferences (2013, unknown): “For example, Dave et al. (2010) presented participants with six gambles.”
Stability of risk preference measures: results from a field experiment on French farmers (2012, methodology): “A serious concern with the use of this approach is that responses may not be incentive compatible, Dave et al. (2007).”
Determinants of risk behaviour: effects of perceived risks and risk attitude on farmer’s adoption of risk management strategies (2016, background): “Another key factor in determining how farmers respond to risk is believed to be risk attitude (Dave et al. 2007; Pennings and Garcia 2001; Weber and Milliman 1997; Willock, Deary, and McGregor 1999).”
A Reconsideration of Gender Differences in Risk Attitudes (2016, unknown): “22, higher than what found in Dave et al. (2010).14 Females display a similar μ as males and this evidence rules out numeracy from the possible explanations of gender differences.”
Are risk preferences stable? Comparing an experimental measure with a validated survey-based measure (2008, methodology): “The task continued Of the studies cited above, only the sample used by Dave et al. (2007) is larger, at 881 subjects.”
Measuring the time stability of Prospect Theory preferences (2010, unknown): “Deck et al. (2009) Morone (2009) Dave et al. (2010)”
A Theoretical and Experimental Appraisal of Five Risk Elicitation Methods (2013, unknown): “Dave et al. (2010) stress the trade-off between the complexity and precision of the task, comparing HL and EG risk elicitation mechanisms.”
The psychometric and empirical properties of measures of risk preferences (2017, unknown): “Also, though previous work (e.g., Choi et al. 2014; Dave et al. 2010; von Gaudecker et al. 2011) has shown the consistency or variance of decision-making under uncertainty is related to socio-economic characteristics, we do not model mt as dependent on covariates, as this would add a significant…”
Contract farming and smallholder incentives to produce high quality: experimental evidence from the Vietnamese dairy sector (2013, methodology): “Second, in designing the experiment we took into account that presentation of highly abstract and complex decision tasks may confuse subjects with limited numerical skills (Dave et al., 2010).”