Portfolio Choice and Risk Attitudes: An Experiment

By Gary Charness, Uri Gneezy. 2003

327 citations recorded by the source corpus.

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

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ab93cbd712c462f6bc6e99307f05d2c899d47d7f

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 Reconsideration of Gender Differences in Risk Attitudes (2016, unknown): “…we limit our analysis to three representative and widely used methods: the Investment Game, introduced by Gneezy and Potters (1997) and refined by Charness and Gneezy (2010), an Ordered Lottery Selection task proposed by Eckel and Grossman (2002, 2008b), and the Holt and Laury (2002) task, the…”
Get Real! Individuals Prefer More Sustainable Investments (2018, unknown): “Second, literature shows that people do not like uncertainty and therefore avoid outcomes which increase uncertainty (e.g. Ellsberg 1961; Mukerji and Tallon 2001; Charness and Gneezy 2010).”
Risk aversion vs. individualism: what drives risk taking in household finance? (2014, unknown): “Behavioral finance is concerned with psychological influences on individual investor behavior (Charness and Gneezy 2010).”
The “bomb” risk elicitation task (2013, unknown): “This finding is at odds with other results in the literature, which show that females display a more conservative behaviour in decisions under uncertainty, as reported for instance by Charness and Gneezy (2011), Charness and Viceisza (2011) and in the survey by Eckel and Grossman (2008b). Moreover i”
Cheating, emotions, and rationality: an experiment on tax evasion (2010, methodology): “Overall, we find substantial treatment effects, as an environment where evading behavior is made public reduces the proportion of evaders and the amount evaded.”
Cooperation and Competition in Intergenerational Experiments in (2008, unknown): “In our 21 that males contribute significantly less than females, a result that we view with some caution given that John Ledyard (1995) and Catherine Eckel and Philip Grossman (2006) report a lack of evidence for a systematic difference between men and women in public-goods experiments.”
The Intrinsic Value of Decision Rights (2014, background): “Finally, in moral and political philosophy, John Stuart Mill argues that liberty is “one of the elements of wellbeing” (1859, Chapter III), and individual autonomy is regarded as a basic moral and political value (see, e.g., Christman 2011).”
Self-confidence and strategic behavior (2017, unknown): “…is strategic, it is natural to find gender differences in our participants’ behavior, given the evidence of other gender differences such as with respect to financial risk preferences (Charness and Gneezy 2010, 2012), competition (Gneezy et al. 2003), and even shame (Ludwig and Thoma 2012).”
Stochastic Choice and Preferences for Randomization (2017, unknown): “In the first, developed by Gneezy and Potters (1997) and Charness and Gneezy (2010), subjects were endowed with 100 tokens and chose how many to invest in a risky project that has 50% chance of success and returns 2.”
A Theoretical and Experimental Appraisal of Five Risk Elicitation Methods (2013, unknown): “In percentage terms, they allocated to the risky asset 73.3% and 56.3% of the endowment, respectively, i.e., fractions virtually identical to those reported for instance by Charness and Gneezy (2010).”
How to measure time preferences in children: a comparison of two methods (2015, background): “The child had to decide how many of five tokens to invest in a lottery that doubled the number of invested tokens with a 50% probability, while with 50% probability the child lost the invested tokens (Charness and Gneezy, 2010).”
Economic behavior of children and adolescents – A first survey of experimental economics results (2019, background): “Sometimes, risk preferences are also measured by giving subjects a fixed endowment and letting them decide which part of it to invest into a lottery that has typically a positive expected value (Charness and Gneezy, 2010).”