Are risk preferences consistent across elicitation procedures? A field experiment in Congo basin countries

Marielle Brunette () and Jonas Ngouhouo-Poufoun

The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, 2022, vol. 47, issue 1, No 7, 122-140

Abstract: Abstract We compare individual risk preferences elicited through a classic Ordered Lottery Selection (OLS) procedure with five gambles, and an extended procedure composed of nine gambles. The research question is about the consistency of the risk preferences across these two elicitation variants. We implemented a field experiment with 1002 rural households in the Congo Basin from December 2013 to July 2014. We show that 1/3 of the sample is extremely risk averse regardless of the procedure. We found inconsistencies in risk preferences elicited across procedures. Indeed, 45.71% are characterized by inconsistency of preferences, either weak (34.53%) or strong (11.18%); 42.81% of the sample exhibits consistent preferences and the remaining 11.48% of the sample - initially risk neutral in the classic procedure - is classified as risk loving in the extended procedure. Undereducation can be seen as the main driver of the strong inconsistency since the incremental change brought about by the attainment of secondary school on the likelihood to remain consistent is ten times greater than the other considered drivers.

Keywords: Field experiment; Risk aversion; Ordered lottery selection; Preferences; Farmers (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s10713-021-00062-7 Abstract (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
Working Paper: Are risk preferences consistent across elicitation procedures? A field experiment in Congo basin countries (2022)
Working Paper: Are risk preferences consistent across elicitation procedures ? A field experiment in Congo Basin countries (2021)
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:pal:genrir:v:47:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1057_s10713-021-00062-7

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/journal/10713

DOI: 10.1057/s10713-021-00062-7

Access Statistics for this article

The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review is currently edited by Michael Hoy and Nicolas Treich

More articles in The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review from Palgrave Macmillan, International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association) Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().