IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/chu/wpaper/10-17.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Personality and the Consistency of Risk Taking Behavior: Experimental Evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Cary Deck

    (University of Arkansas and Economic Science Institute)

  • Jungmin Lee

    (Florida International University)

  • Javier Reyes

    (University of Arkansas)

Abstract

Researchers have found that an individual’s risk attitude is not stable across elicitation methods. Results reported by Deck et al. (2009) suggest that personality may help explain the apparent inconsistency, offering support to Borghans et al.’s (2008) argument that economists should consider a multi-domain approach to measuring risk attitudes. This paper uses laboratory methods to compare risk attitudes as measured by the Holt and Laury (2002) procedure under two different frames. We find that, as in Deck et al. (2009), one’s willingness to take financial risks (as measured by Weber et al. 2002) significantly affects behavior; however the effect is significantly greater when the task is framed as a financial decision. This paper also asks whether personality can explain the well documented behavioral difference between first price and Dutch auctions. While one’s gambling attitude (as measured by Weber et al. 2002) affects bidding behavior, it does not do so differentially between auction formats.

Suggested Citation

  • Cary Deck & Jungmin Lee & Javier Reyes, 2010. "Personality and the Consistency of Risk Taking Behavior: Experimental Evidence," Working Papers 10-17, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    • Handle: RePEc:chu:wpaper:10-17
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.chapman.edu/ESI/wp/Deck_PersonalityConsistencyRiskTaking.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul J. H. Schoemaker, 1990. "Are Risk-Attitudes Related Across Domains and Response Modes?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(12), pages 1451-1463, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Filippin, Antonio & Crosetto, Paolo, 2014. "A Reconsideration of Gender Differences in Risk Attitudes," IZA Discussion Papers 8184, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Jonathan Chapman & Mark Dean & Pietro Ortoleva & Erik Snowberg & Colin Camerer, 2017. "Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept are Probably Less Correlated Than You Think," NBER Working Papers 23954, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. repec:mth:jas888:v:6:y:2018:i:1:p:116-130 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Paolo Crosetto & Antonio Filippin, 2016. "A theoretical and experimental appraisal of four risk elicitation methods," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(3), pages 613-641, September.
    5. Jana Cahlíková & Lubomír Cingl, 2017. "Risk preferences under acute stress," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(1), pages 209-236, March.
    6. Antonio Filippin & Paolo Crosetto, 2016. "A Reconsideration of Gender Differences in Risk Attitudes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(11), pages 3138-3160, November.
    7. Jonathan Chapman & Mark Dean & Pietro Ortoleva & Erik Snowberg & Colin Camerer, 2021. "On the Relation between Willingness to Accept and Willingness to Pay," Working Papers 2021-90, Princeton University. Economics Department..
    8. Dennis Barber, 2015. "An experimental analysis of risk and entrepreneurial attitudes of university students in the USA and Brazil," Journal of International Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 370-389, December.

    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. Brown Kruse, Jamie & Thompson, Mark A., 2001. "A comparison of salient rewards in experiments: money and class points," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 113-117, December.
    2. Humaira Mumtaz & Iqbal Javed & Allah Bakhsh, 2019. "Impact of Psychological Consequences on Poverty: An Evidence from Pakistan," Journal of Economic Impact, Science Impact Publishers, vol. 1(3), pages 70-79.
    3. Bouchouicha, Ranoua & Martinsson, Peter & Medhin, Haileselassie & Vieider, Ferdinand M., 2017. "Stake effects on ambiguity attitudes for gains and losses," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 83(1), pages 19-35.
    4. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & l’Haridon, Olivier & Pinto, Jose Luis, 2016. "An elicitation of utility for quality of life under prospect theory," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 121-134.
    5. Nathalie Etchart-Vincent & Olivier l’Haridon, 2011. "Monetary incentives in the loss domain and behavior toward risk: An experimental comparison of three reward schemes including real losses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 61-83, February.
    6. Luis C. Dias & Rudolf Vetschera, 2019. "Multiple local optima in Zeuthen–Hicks bargaining: an analysis of different preference models," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 7(1), pages 33-53, May.
    7. Susara Johanna Ferreira, 2019. "Is financial risk tolerance influenced by personality traits?," Proceedings of Economics and Finance Conferences 9511451, International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences.
    8. Ann-Renée Blais & Elke U. Weber, 2006. "A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT)Scale for Adult Populations," CIRANO Working Papers 2006s-24, CIRANO.
    9. Xiaoxiao Hu & Xiaofei Xie, 2012. "Validation of the Domain-Specific Risk-Taking Scale in Chinese college students," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(2), pages 181-188, March.
    10. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:1:p:112-134 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Caspar G Chorus & Theo A Arentze & Harry J P Timmermans, 2009. "Spatial Choice: A Matter of Utility or Regret?," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 36(3), pages 538-551, June.
    12. Manel Baucells & Antonio Villasís, 2010. "Stability of risk preferences and the reflection effect of prospect theory," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 193-211, February.
    13. Eyal Ert & Ido Erev, 2010. "On the Descriptive Value of Loss Aversion in Decisions under Risk," Harvard Business School Working Papers 10-056, Harvard Business School.
    14. Julius Pahlke & Sebastian Strasser & Ferdinand Vieider, 2015. "Responsibility effects in decision making under risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 125-146, October.
    15. Chung, Hui-Kuan & Glimcher, Paul & Tymula, Agnieszka, 2015. "Canonical Riskless Choice Over Bundles: Aint No Reference Point Here," Working Papers 2015-07, University of Sydney, School of Economics.
    16. Alison C. Cullen & C. Leigh Anderson & Pierre Biscaye & Travis W. Reynolds, 2018. "Variability in Cross‐Domain Risk Perception among Smallholder Farmers in Mali by Gender and Other Demographic and Attitudinal Characteristics," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(7), pages 1361-1377, July.
    17. Arnaud Reynaud & Stéphane Couture, 2012. "Stability of risk preference measures: results from a field experiment on French farmers," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(2), pages 203-221, August.
    18. Brunette, Marielle & Jacob, Julien, 2019. "Risk aversion, prudence and temperance: An experiment in gain and loss," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 174-189.
    19. Wei Lim & Joo Lee-Partridge & Soo Tan, 2008. "Revenue implication of auction value in k-price sealed-bid auctions: An experimental study," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 25-38, March.
    20. P Brooks & H Zank, 2004. "Attitudes on Gain and Loss Lotteries: A Simple Experiment," Economics Discussion Paper Series 0402, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    21. Manel Baucells & Cristina Rata, 2006. "A Survey Study of Factors Influencing Risk-Taking Behavior in Real-World Decisions Under Uncertainty," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 163-176, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Risk Attitudes; Personality; Auctions; Framing Effects; Laboratory Experiments;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C9 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments
    • D4 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design
    • D8 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty

    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:chu:wpaper:10-17. 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: Megan Luetje (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/esichus.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.