Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract In a sequence of experiments, this study investigates how people evaluate others who make risky decisions on their behalf, and how such evaluations affect delegated risk-taking. A decision maker acts on behalf of a client who holds the decision maker accountable by way of a subjective evaluation after observing a risky decision’s outcome. If evaluation is biased towards the outcome, it may have dysfunctional effects with respect to delegated risk-taking in that decision makers’ risk choices are increasingly misaligned with their clients’ risk preferences. We find evidence giving support to this conjecture. Across and within three experiments, we test for the effects of different types and degrees of accountability in that we manipulate the information available to clients as well as the consequences which evaluations have for decision makers. Evaluations are biased towards outcomes in all experiments. When evaluations affect decision maker’s compensations, a stronger outcome bias in evaluations translates into risk-taking decisions being less frequently aligned with clients’ risk preferences. In the same situation, giving clients the opportunity to make peer comparisons increases outcome bias. We further find that clients do not hold decision makers accountable for their risk choices when they cannot observe the risk-taking decision, but have to infer it from observing the outcome. Theoretical and practical implications of the results are discussed. PubDate: 2023-09-12
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract We make two main contributions to the literature on work-related injury risk and economic outcomes in the context of American professional football. One is to examine an increasingly important specific injury, concussions, and compare its subsequent economic effects to those of other types of football injuries. Our other contribution is to study the role of race in understanding injury risk and severity and their resulting economic consequences, which has been overlooked in previous sports injury research. Using a specific position, tight ends, which allows conditioning on fine-grained relevant measures of player demographics, playing time, and performance, we find that whether a player continues to play NFL football from year to year is affected by type of injury and the player’s race. We calculate that the average ex post loss in annual compensation from a concussion is about 7%. Moreover, the effect of games missed due to concussion on continued employment is triple that of other injuries. Being white positively affects length of playing career independent of the measured productivity of the players involved. The racial gap in career length is approximately equal to the effect of an additional game missed from concussion. With respect to heterogeneity in the effects of injuries, both concussions and other injury types affect ex post economic outcomes equally for white and nonwhite players. Both injuries and race affect compensation solely through their effects on career length. PubDate: 2023-08-08
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract Do people know their own risk preferences, or do risk choices change with experience and observation' We provide a straightforward test in the laboratory. People make an initial decision concerning a lottery choice and then experience 24 unpaid practice periods in which they roll the dice, record the outcome, and record the would-be payoff. They then make a final decision for the lottery choice; one of the first and last periods is randomly chosen for payment. Our primary hypothesis is that people will become less risk-averse by having made and experienced the practice rolls. We do find that people are significantly more likely to become less risk-averse than more risk-averse over time. We note that this move towards assuming increased risk goes in the opposite direction from what is at least arguably predicted by loss aversion and reference dependence. We find that women’s preferences change much less during a session than men’s preferences change. We feel that our literally hands-on approach ensures a degree of engagement that helps to accelerate the learning process. We argue that measures obtained after people have had experience with a mechanism are more meaningful, and that this principle might well extend more generally to other elicitation tasks. PubDate: 2023-06-22 DOI: 10.1007/s11166-023-09413-3
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract We empirically show that sample information not only moderates prospects’ outcome ambiguity but also decision makers’ revealed aversion of them. Since most natural prospects permit at least some sample inference, accounting for their degree of ambiguity improves prediction of aversion. The special case of full ambiguity, as in Ellsberg-type designs, is typically averted—yet many decision makers systematically like low degrees of ambiguity while disliking higher degrees. Ambiguity attitudes might thus usefully be characterized by not only their sensitivity to degrees of ambiguity but also such ambiguity thresholds. Just as people like some risks but not others, they have ambiguity attitudes that depend on how much ambiguity there is. We thus show how attitudes towards a degree of ambiguity are systematic, enabling prediction across sources of ambiguity. PubDate: 2023-06-12 DOI: 10.1007/s11166-023-09410-6
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract In this paper, we provide an explanation for why risk taking is related to optimism. Using a laboratory experiment, we show that the degree of optimism predicts whether people tend to focus on the positive or negative outcomes of risky decisions. While optimists tend to focus on the good outcomes, pessimists focus on the bad outcomes of risk. The tendency to focus on good or bad outcomes of risk in turn affects both the self-reported willingness to take risk and actual risk taking behavior. This suggests that dispositional optimism may affect risk taking mainly by shifting attention to specific outcomes rather than causing misperception of probabilities. In a second study we find evidence that dispositional optimism is related to elicited parameters of rank dependent utility theory suggesting that focusing may be among the psychological determinants of decision weights. Finally, we corroborate our findings with process data related to focusing showing that optimists tend to remember more and attend more to good outcomes and this in turn affects their risk taking. PubDate: 2023-06-12 DOI: 10.1007/s11166-023-09409-z
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract In a seminal contribution, Thaler and Johnson (1990) detected the existence of a house money effect which is defined as an increase in risk tolerance after previous gains resulting from a risky activity. Subsequent studies used the term house money effect also in case of windfall gains, i.e., easily acquired money like show-up fees or initial endowments in experiments which does not result from a risky investment. The present study is to the best of our knowledge the first that disentangles the house money effect and windfall gains. We find a clear and systematic pattern that windfall gains increase risk tolerance. In contrast, the house money effect is far less ubiquitous and seems to require skewed lotteries and/or a large number of rounds played. We, therefore, conclude that a careful distinction between windfall gains and the house money effect is warranted in future research. PubDate: 2023-06-02 DOI: 10.1007/s11166-023-09411-5
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract Advantageous selection occurs when the agents most eager to buy insurance are also the cheapest ones to insure. Hemenway (1990) links it to differences in risk-aversion among agents, implying different prevention efforts, and finally different riskinesses. We argue that it may also appear when agents share the same attitude towards risk, and in the absence of moral hazard. Using a standard asymmetric information setting satisfying a single-crossing property, we show that advantageous selection may occur when several contracts are offered, or when agents also face a non-insurable background risk, or when agents face two mutually exclusive risks that are bundled together. We illustrate this last effect in the context of life care annuities, a product bundling long-term care insurance and annuities, by constructing a numerical example based on Canadian survey data. PubDate: 2023-05-26 DOI: 10.1007/s11166-023-09412-4
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract We examine preference for randomization, and link it to conflicting preference-led indecisiveness in social settings. In an ultimatum game experiment where receivers may face conflicting preferences between material gains and equity, we allow receivers to assign non-zero probabilities to both acceptance and rejection (the randomized choice) in addition to the standard binary choice of acceptance or rejection. We further elicit receivers’ willingness to pay for using the randomized choice instead of the binary choice. We find that a theoretical model incorporating receivers’ conflicting preferences explains the experimental results well: most receivers randomized actively between acceptance and rejection, and many were willing to pay for randomization. Our results suggest that allowing people to randomize when making choices with conflicting preferences may improve individual welfare. PubDate: 2023-05-23 DOI: 10.1007/s11166-023-09407-1
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract Individuals’ monetary values of decreases in mortality risk depend on the magnitude and timing of the risk reduction. We elicited stated preferences among three time paths of risk reduction yielding the same increase in life expectancy (decreasing risk for the next decade, subtracting a constant from or multiplying risk by a constant in all future years) and willingness to pay (WTP) for risk reductions differing in timing and life-expectancy gain. Respondents exhibited heterogeneous preferences over the alternative time paths, with almost 90 percent reporting transitive orderings. WTP is statistically significantly associated with life-expectancy gain (between about 7 and 28 days) and with respondents’ stated preferences over the alternative time paths. Estimated value per statistical life year (VSLY) can differ by time path and averages about $500,000, roughly consistent with conventional estimates obtained by dividing estimated value per statistical life by discounted life expectancy. PubDate: 2023-05-10 DOI: 10.1007/s11166-023-09406-2
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract We use data on fatal crashes to quantify the risk of distracted driving. We repurpose, extend, and improve a methodology used to estimate the riskiness of drinking drivers (Levitt & Porter, 2001). Our analysis suggests that distracted drivers are three times more likely to cause a fatal crash than focused drivers. We also estimate that distracted drivers represent three to four percent of drivers on the road at any given time. Further, we find that distractions associated with cellphone use are less likely to cause a fatal crash than are distractions from other sources. The externality costs between $0.02 and $0.05 per mile driven. The insurance surcharge for a distracted driving citation that could internalize the avoidable insurance losses is approximately $577 per year. Our work extends the literature on distracted driving and traffic fatalities. We believe our results can inform policymakers on the traffic-safety and economic consequences of distracted driving. PubDate: 2023-05-04 DOI: 10.1007/s11166-023-09405-3
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract This work reports the results of two online experiments with a general-population sample examining the performance of different tasks for the elicitation of risk attitudes. First, I compare the investment task of Gneezy and Potters (1997), the standard choice-list method of Holt and Laury (2002), and the multi-alternative procedure of Eckel and Grossman (2002) and evaluate their performance in terms of the number of correctly-predicted binary decisions in a set of out-of-sample lottery choices. There are limited differences between the tasks in this sense, and performance is modest. Second, I included three additional budget-choice tasks (selection of a lottery from a linear budget set) where optimal decisions should have been corner solutions, and find that a large majority of participants provided interior solutions instead, casting doubts on people’s understanding of tasks of this type. Finally, I investigate whether these two results depend on cognitive ability, numerical literacy, and education. While optimal choices in budget-choice tasks are related to numerical literacy and cognitive ability, the predictive performance of the risk-elicitation tasks is unaffected. PubDate: 2023-05-03 DOI: 10.1007/s11166-023-09408-0
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract Measuring risk tolerance is of interest to policymakers given its importance in decision-making, and previous research has shown that the scale of payoffs influences elicited risk aversion levels. Sometimes budget-conscious researchers pay only some subjects for their decisions when eliciting risk preferences, or pay smaller stakes to everyone. We test the effect of paying some versus paying all subjects in the context of risk preferences, controlling for the difference in stakes induced by paying only some subjects. Paying some subjects yields lower levels of risk aversion than paying everyone, but more risk aversion than paying all subjects lower stakes. Paying some subjects also impacts the ordering of subjects by elicited risk aversion. We estimate a simple structural model of latent risk aversion that derives a correction factor to approximate paying high stakes to all subjects. Paying some subjects high stakes meaningfully impacts the elicited level of risk aversion, but better approximates the condition of paying all subjects high stakes compared to paying everyone lower stakes. PubDate: 2023-04-01 DOI: 10.1007/s11166-022-09389-6
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract Incentivized experiments in which individuals receive monetary rewards according to the outcomes of their decisions are regarded as the gold standard for preference elicitation in experimental economics. These task-related real payments are considered necessary to reveal subjects’ “true preferences.” Using a systematic, large-sample approach with three subject pools of private investors, professional investors, and students, we test the effect of task-related monetary incentives on risk preferences in four standard experimental tasks. We find no significant differences in behavior between and within subjects in the incentivized and non-incentivized regimes. We discuss implications for academic research and forions in the field. PubDate: 2023-04-01 DOI: 10.1007/s11166-022-09377-w
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract Public lotteries for non-market goods provide a unique field counterpart to experimental lotteries with monetary payoffs for investigating risk and time preferences. In this paper random expected utility and rank dependent expected utility models of public lottery choice are estimated under constant relative risk aversion preferences and hyperbolic time preferences with a balanced panel of 7,924 participants in the 127 lotteries for elk hunting licenses in New Mexico in the year before and after a set of natural policy experiments. Consistent with experimental findings, significant heterogeneity in risk and time preferences is found in applicant choices, and applicants are found to significantly place a nonlinear weight on both the probability of being drawn and of harvesting an elk. Mean discount rate estimates are also on a par with experimental results documented in the growing joint risk-time preferences literature. PubDate: 2023-03-04 DOI: 10.1007/s11166-023-09404-4
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract Data from three surveys before and after the 2022 mass shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde provide a natural experiment to assess perceptions and valuations of mass shootings. The degree of overestimation of mass shooting risks surged following these tragedies. The odds of believing that mass shooting risks exceeded other firearm homicide risks more than doubled after these shootings. More than one-third of respondents viewed mass shootings as a greater threat to themselves than other firearm homicide risks, and a similar number viewed them as a greater threat to the public. A risk–risk choice experiment examined the tradeoff rate between deaths from mass shootings and from other firearm homicides. People generally viewed prevention of deaths from mass shootings as being equivalent to preventing other firearm homicides. However, respondents who believed that mass shooting risks were a greater threat both to themselves and to the public than other firearm homicide risks treated mass shooting deaths prevented as if they were 37.5% greater than the stated amounts. Risk–risk tradeoff studies and stated preference studies more generally should account for whether respondents’ perceived risk levels differ from the risk values stated in the survey. The principal manifestation of dread for mass shootings is through risk beliefs. Irrational fears may intrude on elicitation of risk preferences, making it essential to account for perceptional biases in stated preference studies of risks. PubDate: 2023-02-25 DOI: 10.1007/s11166-023-09403-5
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract In the United States, individual states established a minimum legal sale age (MLSA) for e-cigarettes between 2010 and 2016 when a federal MLSA came into place. These policies provide a natural experiment from which we can better understand the effect that e-cigarettes have on youth combustible tobacco use. This paper uses National Youth Tobacco Survey data to estimate the effect of the gradual roll-out of e-cigarette MLSAs in the United States on youth e-cigarette use, cigarette use, and cigar use (i.e., cigars, cigarillos, or little cigars). Using an estimator designed to correct for dynamic heterogeneity in treatment effects, e-cigarette MLSAs are estimated to reduce lifetime e-cigarette use by approximately 25% and increase daily cigarette use and daily cigar use by approximately 35%. Therefore, these MLSAs operate as intended in reducing e-cigarette use, although at the expense of more dangerous combustible tobacco use. The Food and Drug Administration should consider the impact of e-cigarette availability in reducing youth combustible tobacco use as an important public health benefit of e-cigarettes in their regulatory activity. PubDate: 2023-01-14 DOI: 10.1007/s11166-022-09402-y
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract We experimentally study a class of pie-sharing games with alternating roles from a decision-making perspective. For this, we consider a variant of a two-stage alternating-offer game which introduces an imbalance in the protagonists’ bargaining powers. This game class enables us to investigate how exposure to risk and strategic ambiguity affects one’s bargaining behaviour. Two structural econometric models of behaviour, a naïve and a sophisticated one, capture remarkably well the observed deviations from the game-theoretic benchmark. Our findings indicate, in particular, that a higher exposure to strategic ambiguity leads to a behaviour that is less responsive to the game’s parameters and to distorted, yet consistent, beliefs about other’s behaviour. We also find evidence of a backward-reasoning whereby first-stage decisions relate to the second-stage ones but which do not call for the counterfactual reasoning that characterises rationality in such settings. PubDate: 2023-01-07 DOI: 10.1007/s11166-022-09401-z
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract How do we judge others’ behavior when they are both seen and not seen—when we observe their behavior but not the underlying traits or history that moderate the perceived riskiness of their behavior' We investigate this question in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: How people make sense of, and judge, vaccination-contingent behaviors—behaviors, such as going to the gym or a bar, which are considered to be more or less risky and appropriate, depending on the target’s vaccination status. While decision theoretic models suggest that these judgments should depend on the probability that the target is vaccinated (e.g., the positivity of judgments should increase linearly with the probability of vaccination), in a large-scale pre-registered experiment (N = 936) we find that both riskiness and appropriateness judgments deviate substantially from such normative benchmarks. Specifically, when participants judge a stranger’s behavior, without being asked to think about the stranger’s vaccination status, they tend to judge these behaviors similarly positively to behaviors of others who are known to be fully vaccinated. By contrast, when participants are explicitly prompted to think about the vaccination status of others, they do so, leading them to view others more disparagingly, at times even more negatively than what a normative benchmark would imply. More broadly, these results suggest new directions for research on how people respond to risk and ambiguity. We demonstrate that even subtle cues can fundamentally alter what information is “top of mind,” that is, what information is included or excluded when making judgments. PubDate: 2022-12-12 DOI: 10.1007/s11166-022-09396-7
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract Time discounting is a fundamental characteristic of human decision-making. In general, the literature finds that individuals with lower discount rates are more likely to exhibit healthy behaviors such as saving for the future, exercising, acquiring more education and making other decisions that have long-term benefits. Recent evidence suggests there may be at least two pathways by which individual’s underlying behavioral discount rate may be realized: non-linearities in the intertemporal utility function (standard discounting behavior) and non-linearities in the perception of time. We conducted an experiment on Amazon Mechanical Turk (N = 1000) to evaluate whether discount rates could be modified through an educational intervention. In the experiment, the treatment group had to calculate rates of return for a six-month period for a series of investment vehicles with varying rates of returns including a savings account, a bank certificate of deposit, government bond, mutual fund, and mutual sector fund. The results indicate that even one week after treatment, the intervention group’s discount rates were significantly lower than the control group’s discount rates. This has important implications for the possibility of designing interventions to lower individual discount rates. PubDate: 2022-08-27 DOI: 10.1007/s11166-022-09390-z
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Abstract This paper empirically analyzes how individual characteristics are associated with risk aversion, loss aversion, time discounting, and present bias. To this end, we conduct a large-scale demographically representative survey across eight European countries. We elicit preferences using incentivized multiple price lists and jointly estimate preference parameters to account for their structural dependencies. Our findings suggest that preferences are linked to a variety of individual characteristics such as age, gender, and income as well as some personal values. We also report evidence on the relationship between cognitive ability and preferences. Incentivization, stake size, and the order of presentation of binary choices matter, underlining the importance of controlling for these factors when eliciting economic preferences. PubDate: 2022-08-16 DOI: 10.1007/s11166-022-09383-y
Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles)
