IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_9993.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Eliciting Preferences for Risk and Altruism: Experimental Evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Romain Gauriot
  • Stephanie A. Heger
  • Robert Slonim

Abstract

We apply the basic lessons and insights learned in the elicitation and estimation of risk and time preferences literature to the literature on social preferences. Following Andersen et al. (2008), we design a laboratory experiment to jointly elicit risk preferences and preferences for altruism. Consistent with theory, we find that the standard simplifying assumptions about risk preferences lead to significantly biased estimates of altruism. This is particularly problematic when comparing altruism across relevant sub-groups, such as gender and wealth, leading to possibly erroneous conclusions about which is the more generous sex and the self-regarding rich.

Suggested Citation

  • Romain Gauriot & Stephanie A. Heger & Robert Slonim, 2022. "Eliciting Preferences for Risk and Altruism: Experimental Evidence," CESifo Working Paper Series 9993, CESifo.
    • Handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_9993
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cesifo.org/DocDL/cesifo1_wp9993.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John D. Hey & Chris Orme, 2018. "Investigating Generalizations Of Expected Utility Theory Using Experimental Data," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 3, pages 63-98, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. Wilcox, Nathaniel T., 2011. "'Stochastically more risk averse:' A contextual theory of stochastic discrete choice under risk," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 162(1), pages 89-104, May.
    3. Bin Miao & Songfa Zhong, 2015. "Risk Preferences Are Not Time Preferences: Separating Risk and Time Preference: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(7), pages 2272-2286, July.
    4. Fisman, Raymond & Jakiela, Pamela & Kariv, Shachar, 2015. "How did distributional preferences change during the Great Recession?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 84-95.
    5. Gauriot, Romain & Heger, Stephanie A. & Slonim, Robert, 2020. "Altruism or diminishing marginal utility?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 24-48.
    6. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    7. Pavlo R. Blavatskyy, 2011. "A Model of Probabilistic Choice Satisfying First-Order Stochastic Dominance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(3), pages 542-548, March.
    8. Stephen L. Cheung, 2015. "Risk Preferences Are Not Time Preferences: On the Elicitation of Time Preference under Conditions of Risk: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(7), pages 2242-2260, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rodriguez-Lara, Ismael & Ponti, Giovanni, 2017. "Social motives vs social influence: An experiment on interdependent time preferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 177-194.
    2. Rodriguez-Lara, Ismael & Ponti, Giovanni, 2017. "Social Motives vs Social Influence: an Experiment on Time Preferences," MPRA Paper 76486, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Drichoutis, Andreas & Lusk, Jayson, 2012. "Risk preference elicitation without the confounding effect of probability weighting," MPRA Paper 37762, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Stephen L. Cheung, 2020. "Eliciting utility curvature in time preference," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(2), pages 493-525, June.
    5. Daniel Navarro-Martinez & Graham Loomes & Andrea Isoni & David Butler & Larbi Alaoui, 2018. "Boundedly rational expected utility theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 57(3), pages 199-223, December.
    6. Cueva, Carlos & Iturbe-Ormaetxe, Iñigo & Mata-Pérez, Esther & Ponti, Giovanni & Sartarelli, Marcello & Yu, Haihan & Zhukova, Vita, 2016. "Cognitive (ir)reflection: New experimental evidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 81-93.
    7. Despoina Alempaki & Emina Canic & Timothy L. Mullett & William J. Skylark & Chris Starmer & Neil Stewart & Fabio Tufano, 2019. "Reexamining How Utility and Weighting Functions Get Their Shapes: A Quasi-Adversarial Collaboration Providing a New Interpretation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(10), pages 4841-4862, October.
    8. Barrafrem, Kinga & Hausfeld, Jan, 2020. "Tracing risky decisions for oneself and others: The role of intuition and deliberation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    9. Jan Hausfeld & Sven Resnjanskij, 2017. "Risky Decisions and the Opportunity Costs of Time," TWI Research Paper Series 108, Thurgauer Wirtschaftsinstitut, Universität Konstanz.
    10. Chen Sun & Jan Potters, 2022. "Magnitude effect in intertemporal allocation tasks," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(2), pages 593-623, April.
    11. Blavatskyy, Pavlo, 2013. "Which decision theory?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 40-44.
    12. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2021. "Probabilistic independence axiom," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 46(1), pages 21-34, March.
    13. Blavatskyy, Pavlo R., 2012. "Probabilistic subjective expected utility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 47-50.
    14. Andreas C Drichoutis & Jayson L Lusk, 2014. "Judging Statistical Models of Individual Decision Making under Risk Using In- and Out-of-Sample Criteria," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(7), pages 1-13, July.
    15. Oyarzun, Carlos & Sanjurjo, Adam & Nguyen, Hien, 2017. "Response functions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 1-31.
    16. Rong Rong & Therese C. Grijalva & Jayson Lusk & W. Douglass Shaw, 2019. "Interpersonal discounting," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 17-42, February.
    17. Michael H. Birnbaum & Ulrich Schmidt & Miriam D. Schneider, 2017. "Testing independence conditions in the presence of errors and splitting effects," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 54(1), pages 61-85, February.
    18. Blavatskyy, Pavlo, 2015. "Behavior in the centipede game: A decision-theoretical perspective," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 117-122.
    19. David Butler & Andrea Isoni & Graham Loomes, 2012. "Testing the ‘standard’ model of stochastic choice under risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 191-213, December.
    20. David Butler & Andrea Isoni & Graham Loomes & Kei Tsutsui, 2014. "Beyond choice: investigating the sensitivity and validity of measures of strength of preference," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 17(4), pages 537-563, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    altruism; risk aversion; experiment;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ces:ceswps:_9993. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Klaus Wohlrabe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesifde.html .

    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.