Risk attitudes, randomization to treatment, and self-selection into experiments

Randomization to treatment is fundamental to statistical control in the design of experiments. However randomization implies some uncertainty about treatment condition, and individuals differ in their preferences towards taking on risk. Since human subjects often volunteer for experiments or are allowed to drop out of the experiment at any time if they want to, it is possible that the sample observed in an experiment might be biased because of the risk of randomization. On the other hand, the widespread use of a guaranteed show-up fee that is non-stochastic may generate sample selection biases of the opposite direction, encouraging more risk averse samples into experiments. We directly test these hypotheses that risk attitudes play a role in sample selection. Our results suggest that randomization bias does affect the overall level of risk aversion in the sample we observe, but that it does not affect the demographic mix of risk attitudes in the sample. We show that the common use of non-stochastic show-up fees can generate samples that are more risk averse than would otherwise have been observed.

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

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

[3]  Whitney K. Newey,et al.  Nonparametric Estimation of Sample Selection Models , 2003 .

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

[5]  James J. Heckman,et al.  Longitudinal Analysis of Labor Market Data , 1985 .

[6]  Charles F. Manski,et al.  Evaluating Welfare and Training Programs. , 1994 .

[7]  James J. Heckman,et al.  Assessing the Case for Social Experiments , 1995 .

[8]  G. Harrison,et al.  Risk Aversion in the Laboratory , 2008 .

[9]  J. Kagel,et al.  Economic Choice Theory: An Experimental Analysis of Animal Behavior , 1995 .

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

[11]  Colin Camerer,et al.  Overconfidence and Excess Entry: An Experimental Approach , 1999 .

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

[13]  M S Kramer,et al.  Scientific challenges in the application of randomized trials. , 1984, JAMA.

[14]  M. Kenward,et al.  Informative Drop‐Out in Longitudinal Data Analysis , 1994 .

[15]  Svetlana Pevnitskaya Endogenous Entry in First-Price Private Value Auctions: the Self-Selection Effect , 2003 .

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

[17]  J. Heckman The Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation, Sample Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for Such Models , 1976 .

[18]  Thomas R. Palfrey,et al.  Endogenous entry and self-selection in private value auctions: An experimental study , 2008 .

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

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

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

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

[23]  James C. Cox,et al.  Risk aversion in experiments , 2008 .

[24]  J. Heckman,et al.  Longitudinal Analysis of Labor Market Data: Alternative methods for evaluating the impact of interventions , 1985 .

[25]  Larry V. Hedges,et al.  Subject evaluation in social experiments , 1998 .

[26]  F. Vella Estimating Models with Sample Selection Bias: A Survey , 1998 .

[27]  E. Rutström,et al.  Home-grown values and incentive compatible auction design , 1998 .

[28]  J. Heckman Sample selection bias as a specification error , 1979 .

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