{"title":"Convergent and external validity of risk preferences elicitation methods: Evidence from Vietnam","authors":"Trang Thu Vu , 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.
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.