IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rsk/journ4/6076291.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring latent risk preferences: minimizing measurement biases

Author

Listed:
  • Gosse Alserda

Abstract

The results of eliciting risk preferences are highly dependent;on the elicitation method used. This raises the question of how risk preferences can be reliably elicited. Using item response theory (IRT), the results of four elicitation methods describing common latent variables identified as risk preferences are combined into a composite score. The responses of 9235 individuals;to a dedicated survey indicate that the composite score is a more accurate estimation of latent risk preferences than the results of individual methods, substantially reducing measurement noise and method-specific biases. IRT improves accuracy by allowing variable weighting to be dependent on the most relevant range of each method in estimating latent risk preferences. Therefore, the composite score contains more information about latent risk preferences than the results of either factor-weighted or unweighted methods. Manipulating the specific amounts, order and starting point of the multiple price list method shows that the accuracy of this method is not impervious to framing effects. Combining simpler methods with more advanced methods, which are all framed closely to the relevant situation, yields a more accurate and more robust estimation of latent risk preferences.

Suggested Citation

Handle: RePEc:rsk:journ4:6076291
as

Download full text from publisher

File URL: https://www.risk.net/system/files/digital_asset/2019-06/Measuring_latent_risk_preferences.pdf
Download Restriction: no
---><---

More about this item

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rsk:journ4:6076291. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Thomas Paine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.risk.net/journal-of-risk .

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.