To pay or not to pay: Measuring risk preferences in lab and field

Pablo Brañas-Garza, Lorenzo Estepa-Mohedano, Diego Jorrat, Victor Orozco-Olvera and Ericka Rascon-Ramirez

Judgment and Decision Making, 2021, vol. 16, issue 5, 1290-1313

Abstract: Measuring risk preferences using monetary incentives is costly. In the field, it might be also unfair and unsafe. The commonly used measure of Holt and Laury (2002) relies on a dozen lottery choices and payments, which make it time consuming and expensive. It also raises moral concerns as a result of the unequal payments generated by good and bad luck. Paying some but not all subjects may also create tensions between the researcher and subjects. In a pre-registered study in Honduras, Nigeria and Spain, we use a short version of Holt and Laury where we address all three concerns. We find in the field that not paying at all or paying with and without probabilistic rules makes no difference. Our hypothetical and short version makes our measurement of risk cheaper, fairer and safer.

Date: 2021
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/ ... type/journal_article link to article abstract page (text/html)

Related works:
Working Paper: To pay or not to pay: Measuring riskpreferences in lab and field (2021)
Working Paper: To pay or not to pay: Measuring risk preferences in lab and field (2020)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:5:p:1290-1313_7

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Judgment and Decision Making from Cambridge University Press Cambridge University Press, UPH, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8BS UK.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Kirk Stebbing ().