Journal of the European Economic Association (Impact Factor: 1.36). 05/2011; 9(3):522-550. DOI: 10.1111/j.1542-4774.2011.01015.x
Source: RePEc

ABSTRACT This paper studies risk attitudes using a large representative survey and a complementary experiment conducted with a representative subject pool in subjects' homes. Using a question asking people about their willingness to take risks “in general”, we find that gender, age, height, and parental background have an economically significant impact on willingness to take risks. The experiment confirms the behavioral validity of this measure, using paid lottery choices. Turning to other questions about risk attitudes in specific contexts, we find similar results on the determinants of risk attitudes, and also shed light on the deeper question of stability of risk attitudes across contexts. We conduct a horse race of the ability of different measures to explain risky behaviors such as holdings stocks, occupational choice, and smoking. The question about risk taking in general generates the best all-round predictor of risky behavior.

Download full-text


Available from: Armin Falk, Jul 06, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper examines how risk preferences and loss aversion affect individual choices regarding environmental risks, specifically forest wildfires in Poland. We also examine how the same individuals make choices in the context of financial risks. Estimating risk, loss aversion and weighting probability parameters allows us to directly test whether Prospect Theory or Expected Utility Theory is the better underlying behavioural model in both domains. We find that in a sample consisting of a general population of Poles, the majority of respondents demonstrate behaviour consistent with Prospect Theory in both environmental and financial domains. This finding has significant implications for future non-market valuation studies. Additionally, in this study, we find evidence for similar risk preferences across those two domains.
    Ecological Economics 08/2015; 116. DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.05.006 · 2.52 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Decision makers often take risky decisions on the behalf of others rather than for themselves. Competing theoretical models predict both, higher as well as lower levels of risk aversion when taking risk for others, and the experimental evidence is mixed. In our within-subject design, money managers have substantial responsibility by taking investment decisions for themselves and for a group of six clients, when payments are either fixed or perfectly aligned. We find that money managers invest significantly less for others than for themselves (cautious shift) which is mainly driven by a less risk averse sub sample. Digging deeper we find money managers to rather act in line with what they believe the clients would invest for themselves. We derive a responsibility weighting function to show that with a perfectly aligned payment the money manager weights egoistic and social preferences. Finally we bring our results in perspective with the mixed experimental literature.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper analyses the influencing factors of farmers’ use of price hedging instruments (PHIs) based upon a discrete choice experiment with German grain farmers. A mixed logit model is used to determine whether farmers’ choices of PHIs against cash sales are influenced by their price expectation, their risk attitude and their available storage capacities. The results Show that farmers with a price expectation below the actual price level have a higher preference for using PHIs against cash sales in general and that the individual degree of risk aversion can have a significant impact on farmers’ choices of a specific PHI. A generally lower preference of farmers with available storage capacities for using PHIs as assumed in many theoretical contributions in the literature, however, cannot be confirmed.
    Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization 12/2014; 12(1):181-192. DOI:10.1515/jafio-2014-0007