Risk Attitudes, Randomization to Treatment, and Self-Selection into Experiments

Randomization to treatment is fundamental to statistical control in the design of experiments. But 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 undertake a field experiment to directly test these hypotheses that risk attitudes play a role in sample selection. We follow standard procedures in the social sciences to recruit subjects to an experiment in which we measure their attitudes to risk. We exploit the fact that we know certain characteristics of the population sampled, adults in Denmark, allowing a statistical correction for sample selection bias using standard methods. We also utilize the fact that we have a complex sampling design to provide better estimates of the target population. Our results suggest that randomization bias is not a major empirical problem for field experiments of the kind we conducted if the objective is to identify marginal effects of sample characteristics. However, there is evidence that the use of show-up fees may have generated a sample that was more risk averse than would otherwise have been observed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[9]  Charles A. Holt,et al.  Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects: New Data without Order Effects , 2005 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[22]  R. Rohh ALTERNATIVE METHODS FOR EVALUATING THE IMPACT OF INTERVENTIONS An Overview , 2001 .

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

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

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

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

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

[28]  Roberto A. Weber,et al.  Sorting in Experiments * , 2004 .

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