Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects: New Data without Order Effects

By Charles A. Holt, S. Laury. 2005

417 citations recorded by the source corpus.

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

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a609e03a97818f0fba0cbe2d09d680516e592ad7

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

On making experimental design choices: Discussions on the use and challenges of demand effects, incentives, deception, samples, and vignettes (2020, background): “…these effects depend on a number of factors: the nature of the task (Eckartz, Kirchkamp, & Schunk, 2012), the amount or type of incentive (Holt, 1986; Holt & Laury, 2005), the value placed on incentives by participants (Ariely, Bracha, & Meier, 2009), as well as a host of additional framing issues.”
Rationality on the rise: Why relative risk aversion increases with stake size (2010, methodology): “We estimated a finite mixture regression model, which assigns each individual to one of several distinct behavioral types and provides type-specific parameter estimates for the underlying decision model (El-Gamal and Grether 1995; Stahl and Wilson 1995; Houser et al. 2004).”
Risk Aversion in the Laboratory (2008, methodology): “For completeness, we also estimate RDU on these data, not shown in Table 6, and find the curvature of the utility function similar to that of EUT, contrary to the estimates discussed above for the data of Holt and Laury (2005).”
Deciding under Doubt: A Theory of Risk Aversion, Time Discounting Preferences, and Educational Decision-making (2014, result): “These figures are similar to previous findings from Denmark (Harrison, Lau, and Rutström, 2007) and elsewhere (Holt and Laury, 2005).”
PEER EFFECTS IN ECONOMIC ATTITUDES (2014, positive): “This is consistent with the results reported in Holt and Laury (2002) and Holt and Laury (2005), using samples of undergraduates, MBA students, and professors, and both real and hypothetical outcomes.”
Eliciting Risk and Time Preferences (2008, positive): “A simple stochastic specification from Holt and Laury (2002) is used to specify likelihoods conditional on the model.”
When and why? A critical survey on coordination failure in the laboratory (2007, positive): “…analyzing stag-hunt games (e.g., the laudable but problematic early attempts by CDFR 1990, 1992 to control for risk preferences through the Roth – Malouf procedure in the stag hunt game) and demonstrated by a recent study by Holt and Laury (2002; see also Harrison et al., 2005; Holt & Laury, 2005).”
Measuring Individual Risk Attitudes in the Lab: Task or Ask? An Empirical Comparison (2015, neutral): “The first four pairs of lotteries give a higher expected payoff for the safer choice, whereas the latter six pairs give a higher expected payoff 5See also Harrison, Johnson, McInnes and Rutström (2005), and Holt and Laury (2005). for the more risky choice.”
The psychometric and empirical properties of measures of risk preferences (2017, neutral): “Studies comparing hypothetical versus incentivized gambles suggest that using financial incentives leads to more risk-averse behavior, and that increasing the size of the financial incentives leads to more risk-averse behavior (Camerer and Hogarth, 1999; Holt and Laury, 2002, 2005).”
Estimating risk attitudes in denmark: A field experiment (2007, positive): “The lottery choices are based on those used by Holt and Laury (2002), who elicited risk attitudes for university students using controlled laboratory experiments.”
O Sole Mio An Experimental Analysis of Weather and Risk Attitudes (2013, methodology): “In our main treatment, we adopt the multiple price-list method of Holt and Laury (2002, 2005), which has become the standard approach in experimental economics to measure individuals’ risk attitudes.”
The “bomb” risk elicitation task (2013, positive): “In order to explore how the BRET compares to other risk elicitation mechanisms we ran additional sessions involving a) a multiple price list, in its Holt and Laury (2005) incarnation (henceforth, HL) b) an ordered lottery choice as implemented by Eckel and Grossman (2002, 2008a) (EG) and c) the…”