Preference Heterogeneity in Experiments: Comparing the Field and Laboratory

Do laboratory experiments provide a reliable basis for measuring field preferences? Economists recognize that preferences can differ across individuals, but only a few attempts have been made to elicit individual preferences for representative samples of a population in a particular geographical area, region or country. Our primary objective is to directly compare estimates of preferences elicited from a convenience sample and the estimates for the wider population from which that sample is drawn. We examine the strengths and weaknesses of laboratory and field experiments to detect differences in preferences over risk and time that are associated with standard, observable characteristics of the individual.

[1]  S. Zeger,et al.  Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models , 1986 .

[2]  J. Kagel,et al.  Common Value Auctions and the Winner's Curse , 2002 .

[3]  Morten I. Lau,et al.  Elicitation using multiple price list formats , 2006 .

[4]  William T. Harbaugh,et al.  Risk Attitudes of Children and Adults: Choices Over Small and Large Probability Gains and Losses , 2002 .

[5]  G. Harrison,et al.  Field experiments , 1924, The Journal of Agricultural Science.

[6]  Uwe Sunde,et al.  Individual Risk Attitudes: New Evidence from a Large, Representative, Experimentally-Validated Survey , 2005, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[7]  Catherine C. Eckel,et al.  Men, Women and Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence , 2008 .

[8]  G. Harrison,et al.  Field Experiments in Economics , 2005 .

[9]  Anabela Botelho,et al.  Bargaining behavior, demographics and nationality: a reconsideration of the experimental evidence , 2001 .

[10]  Catherine C. Eckel,et al.  Sex and Risk: Experimental Evidence , 2008 .

[11]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects: Comment , 2004 .

[12]  Bas Donkers,et al.  Subjective measures of household preferences and financial decisions , 1999 .

[13]  John D. Hey,et al.  Experimental Economics and the Theory of Decision Making Under Risk and Uncertainty , 2002 .

[14]  N. Wilcox,et al.  Decisions, Error and Heterogeneity , 1997 .

[15]  M. Rabin.  Risk Aversion and Expected Utility Theory: A Calibration Theorem , 2000 .

[16]  D. Rubin,et al.  The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects , 1983 .

[17]  Glenn W. Harrison,et al.  Policy Reform Without Tears , 1999 .

[18]  Glenn W. Harrison,et al.  Statistical Bias Functions and Informative Hypothetical Surveys , 1994 .

[19]  Paul H. Rubin,et al.  AN EVOLUTIONARY MODEL OF TASTE FOR RISK , 1979 .

[20]  N. Jianakoplos,et al.  ARE WOMEN MORE RISK AVERSE , 1998 .

[21]  David Ansic,et al.  Gender differences in risk behaviour in financial decision-making: An experimental analysis. , 1997 .

[22]  R L Williams,et al.  A Note on Robust Variance Estimation for Cluster‐Correlated Data , 2000, Biometrics.

[23]  Donald Hedeker,et al.  Longitudinal Data Analysis , 2006 .

[24]  Morten I. Lau,et al.  Eliciting Risk and Time Preferences , 2008 .

[25]  Colin Camerer.  Behavioral Game Theory , 1990 .

[26]  Catherine C. Eckel,et al.  Forecasting Risk Attitudes: An Experimental Study Using Actual and Forecast Gamble Choices , 2008 .

[27]  Irwin P. Levin,et al.  The Interaction of Experiential and Situational Factors and Gender in a Simulated Risky Decision-Making Task , 1988 .

[28]  Arie Kapteyn,et al.  Hypothetical Intertemporal Consumption Choices , 2003 .

[29]  R. Lalonde.  Evaluating the Econometric Evaluations of Training Programs with Experimental Data , 1984 .

[30]  Arthur J. Robson,et al.  The Evolution of Attitudes to Risk: Lottery Tickets and Relative Wealth , 1996 .

[31]  Morten I. Lau,et al.  Estimating Individual Discount Rates in Denmark: A Field Experiment , 2002 .

[32]  James C. Cox,et al.  Small- and Large-Stakes Risk Aversion: Implications of Concavity Calibration for Decision Theory , 2005, Games Econ. Behav..

[33]  Atanu Saha,et al.  Expo-Power Utility: A ‘Flexible’ Form for Absolute and Relative Risk Aversion , 1993 .

[34]  Glenn W. Harrison.  Experimental Evidence on Alternative Environmental Valuation Methods , 2005 .

[35]  C. Starmer.  Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk , 2000 .

[36]  Morten I. Lau.  Assessing Tax Reforms When Human Capital is Endogenous , 2000 .

[37]  Renate Schubert,et al.  Financial Decision-Making: Are Women Really More Risk-Averse? , 1999 .

[38]  Glenn W. Harrison,et al.  Eliciting risk and time preferences using field experiments: Some methodological issues , 2006 .

[39]  K. Arrow.  Higher education as a filter , 1973 .

[40]  Richard Gonzalez,et al.  On the Shape of the Probability Weighting Function , 1999, Cognitive Psychology.

[41]  Steffen Andersen,et al.  Lost in State Space: Are Preferences Stable? , 2008 .

[42]  Amedeo Fossati,et al.  Policy evaluation with computable general equilibrium models , 2003 .

[43]  Morten I. Lau,et al.  Estimating Risk Attitudes in Denmark: A Field Experiment , 2005 .

[44]  E. Elisabet Rutström,et al.  Temporal stability of estimates of risk aversion , 2005 .

[45]  M. Coller,et al.  Eliciting Individual Discount Rates , 1999 .

[46]  Glenn W. Harrison,et al.  Using dynamic general equilibrium models for policy analysis , 2000 .

[47]  Glenn W. Harrison,et al.  The Sensitivity Analysis of Applied General Equilibrium Models: Completely Randomized Factorial Sampling Designs , 1992 .

[48]  Charles A. Holt,et al.  Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects , 2002 .

[49]  W. Rogers.  Regression standard errors in clustered samples , 1994 .

[50]  Jeffrey A. Smith,et al.  Does Matching Overcome Lalonde's Critique of Nonexperimental Estimators? , 2000 .