Eliciting risk-preferences in socio-economic surveys: How do different measures perform?

Michela Coppola
{"title":"Eliciting risk-preferences in socio-economic surveys: How do different measures perform?","authors":"Michela Coppola","doi":"10.1016/j.socec.2013.08.010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This paper contributes to the debate on the adequate elicitation of individual risk attitudes in general socio-economic surveys. A multi-item question on the willingness to take risk, a very short form of the DOSPERT scale (<span>Weber et al., 2002</span>) and a series of lottery tasks are compared with respect to the quality of the answers and the predictive validity of the derived risk measures. The quality of the collected data appears to be high. All the measures are informative about individual's attitudes while item nonresponse is mostly unproblematic. The measures however differ in their predictive power, with the lottery-based measures exhibiting only weak predictive validity. When the scope of the assessment is to predict behaviour, domain specific risk measures seem to be more appropriate. Embedding a short DOSPERT scale in general surveys appears to be very promising for empirical applications in social sciences that use survey-based risk measures.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":88732,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of socio-economics","volume":"48 ","pages":"Pages 1-10"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.socec.2013.08.010","citationCount":"35","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of socio-economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053535713001376","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 35

Abstract

This paper contributes to the debate on the adequate elicitation of individual risk attitudes in general socio-economic surveys. A multi-item question on the willingness to take risk, a very short form of the DOSPERT scale (Weber et al., 2002) and a series of lottery tasks are compared with respect to the quality of the answers and the predictive validity of the derived risk measures. The quality of the collected data appears to be high. All the measures are informative about individual's attitudes while item nonresponse is mostly unproblematic. The measures however differ in their predictive power, with the lottery-based measures exhibiting only weak predictive validity. When the scope of the assessment is to predict behaviour, domain specific risk measures seem to be more appropriate. Embedding a short DOSPERT scale in general surveys appears to be very promising for empirical applications in social sciences that use survey-based risk measures.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在社会经济调查中激发风险偏好:不同的衡量标准如何发挥作用?
本文有助于在一般社会经济调查中充分激发个人风险态度的辩论。一个关于冒险意愿的多项目问题,一个非常简短的DOSPERT量表(Weber et al.,2002)和一系列彩票任务,就答案的质量和导出的风险度量的预测有效性进行了比较。收集到的数据质量似乎很高。所有的测量都是关于个人态度的信息,而项目无反应大多没有问题。然而,这些指标的预测能力不同,基于彩票的指标仅表现出较弱的预测有效性。当评估的范围是预测行为时,特定领域的风险措施似乎更合适。在一般调查中嵌入一个简短的DOSPERT量表,对于在社会科学中使用基于调查的风险度量的实证应用似乎非常有希望。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Time preferences and overconfident beliefs: Evidence from germany The development of social strategic ignorance and other regarding behavior from childhood to adulthood How closely related are financial satisfaction and subjective well-being? Systematic review and meta-analysis Heterogeneous motivation and cognitive ability in the lab Using involvement to reduce inconsistencies in risk preference elicitation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1