Convergent and external validity of risk preferences elicitation methods: Evidence from Vietnam

IF 1.5 3区 经济学 Q2 ECONOMICS
Trang Thu Vu , Alistair Munro
{"title":"Convergent and external validity of risk preferences elicitation methods: Evidence from Vietnam","authors":"Trang Thu Vu ,&nbsp;Alistair Munro","doi":"10.1016/j.socec.2026.102534","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This study investigates the validity of various risk preference elicitation methods among farmers in rural Vietnam by conducting a field survey and experiment. Elicitation methods include four hypothetical tasks and three incentivized tasks. The hypothetical tasks contain a set of self-assessment questions, multiple price list and a set of hypothetical questions taken from a Vietnamese household survey. Most participants show no difficulty understanding the elicitation tasks. Most elicitation tasks provide evidence that participants are, on average, risk averse. Participants appear less risk-averse in the self-assessment of risk attitude than other methods. Unlike other studies on supporting the use of self-assessment in survey, we find that self-assessment has limited validity as it has the least or no relation with other measures as well as low predictive power of risky behaviors. These differences could reflect contextual factors between developed and developing countries. The findings further indicate that the MPL and loss-gain tasks, particularly in incentivized settings, capture behavioral patterns more consistent with real-life decisions. Accordingly, incentivized MPL and loss-gain tasks may be most suitable for researchers seeking an in-depth understanding of risk preferences, while their hypothetical versions can serve as practical tools for quick assessments or for use as control variables. While these results are encouraging, further research is needed to confirm their robustness across different contexts.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51637,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics","volume":"121 ","pages":"Article 102534"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221480432600025X","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/2/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study investigates the validity of various risk preference elicitation methods among farmers in rural Vietnam by conducting a field survey and experiment. Elicitation methods include four hypothetical tasks and three incentivized tasks. The hypothetical tasks contain a set of self-assessment questions, multiple price list and a set of hypothetical questions taken from a Vietnamese household survey. Most participants show no difficulty understanding the elicitation tasks. Most elicitation tasks provide evidence that participants are, on average, risk averse. Participants appear less risk-averse in the self-assessment of risk attitude than other methods. Unlike other studies on supporting the use of self-assessment in survey, we find that self-assessment has limited validity as it has the least or no relation with other measures as well as low predictive power of risky behaviors. These differences could reflect contextual factors between developed and developing countries. The findings further indicate that the MPL and loss-gain tasks, particularly in incentivized settings, capture behavioral patterns more consistent with real-life decisions. Accordingly, incentivized MPL and loss-gain tasks may be most suitable for researchers seeking an in-depth understanding of risk preferences, while their hypothetical versions can serve as practical tools for quick assessments or for use as control variables. While these results are encouraging, further research is needed to confirm their robustness across different contexts.
风险偏好诱导方法的收敛性和外部有效性:来自越南的证据
本研究透过实地调查与实验,探讨越南农村农民各种风险偏好诱导方法的有效性。启发方法包括四种假设任务和三种激励任务。假设任务包括一组自我评估问题、多个价格表和一组取自越南家庭调查的假设问题。大多数参与者没有表现出理解引出任务的困难。大多数启发任务提供的证据表明,参与者平均而言是厌恶风险的。与其他方法相比,参与者在风险自我评估中表现出较少的风险厌恶态度。与其他支持在调查中使用自我评估的研究不同,我们发现自我评估与其他测量的关系最小或没有关系,并且对风险行为的预测能力较低,因此其效度有限。这些差异可能反映了发达国家和发展中国家之间的背景因素。研究结果进一步表明,MPL和损益任务,特别是在激励环境下,捕捉到的行为模式更符合现实生活中的决策。因此,激励MPL和损益任务可能最适合寻求深入了解风险偏好的研究人员,而他们的假设版本可以作为快速评估或用作控制变量的实用工具。虽然这些结果令人鼓舞,但需要进一步的研究来证实它们在不同背景下的稳健性。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
113
审稿时长
83 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly the Journal of Socio-Economics) welcomes submissions that deal with various economic topics but also involve issues that are related to other social sciences, especially psychology, or use experimental methods of inquiry. Thus, contributions in behavioral economics, experimental economics, economic psychology, and judgment and decision making are especially welcome. The journal is open to different research methodologies, as long as they are relevant to the topic and employed rigorously. Possible methodologies include, for example, experiments, surveys, empirical work, theoretical models, meta-analyses, case studies, and simulation-based analyses. Literature reviews that integrate findings from many studies are also welcome, but they should synthesize the literature in a useful manner and provide substantial contribution beyond what the reader could get by simply reading the abstracts of the cited papers. In empirical work, it is important that the results are not only statistically significant but also economically significant. A high contribution-to-length ratio is expected from published articles and therefore papers should not be unnecessarily long, and short articles are welcome. Articles should be written in a manner that is intelligible to our generalist readership. Book reviews are generally solicited but occasionally unsolicited reviews will also be published. Contact the Book Review Editor for related inquiries.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书