Gamification as an Approach To Enhance Comprehension in Risk Elicitation: Experimental Evidence From Smallholder Farmers

IF 4.7 3区 经济学 Q1 AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY
Selina Bruns, Daniel Hermann, Oliver Musshoff
{"title":"Gamification as an Approach To Enhance Comprehension in Risk Elicitation: Experimental Evidence From Smallholder Farmers","authors":"Selina Bruns,&nbsp;Daniel Hermann,&nbsp;Oliver Musshoff","doi":"10.1111/agec.70124","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Understanding risk attitudes is critical for agricultural development, as risk is ubiquitous in the lives of smallholder farmers. Accurate elicitation of risk attitudes is essential to analyze patterns and biases in decision-making. Ensuring comprehension and attention in risk elicitation tasks is particularly important, as inattentiveness generates noise rather than reliable results. Achieving this remains challenging, especially among smallholder farmers in the Global South, since many sophisticated risk elicitation methods require numerical skills that rural populations often lack due to limited education. To contribute to addressing this problem, we isolate the effects of illustration and gamification in risk elicitation tasks-two elements that may increase attention and engagement, potentially producing lower inconsistencies and more reliable results. We empirically test the <i>Wheel</i>-task, an elicitation method designed to be easy to understand and engaging, to motivate participation. The task follows a wheel-of-fortune model, where a spin determines the payout, while participants can always choose between spinning the wheel and a safe payout. We compare the <i>Wheel</i>-task results to the well-established Holt and Laury task (HL-task) in its original form, as well as with probabilities illustrated using the wheel. We collected the data among smallholder coffee farmers from rural Colombia and Peru and in a pilot phase among smallholder farmers from rural Cambodia. We find low levels of comprehension across all three tasks. More specifically, we find no substantial difference in comprehension or levels of risk aversion when illustrating the probabilities in the HL-task using a wheel. However, gamification affects levels of risk aversion, although these effects appear to be culturally dependent.</p>","PeriodicalId":50837,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural Economics","volume":"57 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/agec.70124","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Agricultural Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/agec.70124","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Understanding risk attitudes is critical for agricultural development, as risk is ubiquitous in the lives of smallholder farmers. Accurate elicitation of risk attitudes is essential to analyze patterns and biases in decision-making. Ensuring comprehension and attention in risk elicitation tasks is particularly important, as inattentiveness generates noise rather than reliable results. Achieving this remains challenging, especially among smallholder farmers in the Global South, since many sophisticated risk elicitation methods require numerical skills that rural populations often lack due to limited education. To contribute to addressing this problem, we isolate the effects of illustration and gamification in risk elicitation tasks-two elements that may increase attention and engagement, potentially producing lower inconsistencies and more reliable results. We empirically test the Wheel-task, an elicitation method designed to be easy to understand and engaging, to motivate participation. The task follows a wheel-of-fortune model, where a spin determines the payout, while participants can always choose between spinning the wheel and a safe payout. We compare the Wheel-task results to the well-established Holt and Laury task (HL-task) in its original form, as well as with probabilities illustrated using the wheel. We collected the data among smallholder coffee farmers from rural Colombia and Peru and in a pilot phase among smallholder farmers from rural Cambodia. We find low levels of comprehension across all three tasks. More specifically, we find no substantial difference in comprehension or levels of risk aversion when illustrating the probabilities in the HL-task using a wheel. However, gamification affects levels of risk aversion, although these effects appear to be culturally dependent.

Abstract Image

游戏化是提高风险诱导理解的途径:来自小农的实验证据
了解风险态度对农业发展至关重要,因为风险在小农的生活中无处不在。准确地得出风险态度对于分析决策中的模式和偏见至关重要。在风险引出任务中确保理解和注意是特别重要的,因为不注意会产生噪音,而不是可靠的结果。实现这一目标仍然具有挑战性,特别是在全球南方的小农中,因为许多复杂的风险预警方法需要数字技能,而农村人口由于教育有限往往缺乏这些技能。为了解决这个问题,我们在风险引出任务中分离了说明和游戏化的影响——这两个因素可能会增加注意力和参与度,潜在地产生更低的不一致性和更可靠的结果。我们对Wheel-task进行了实证测试,Wheel-task是一种易于理解和吸引人的启发方法,旨在激发参与。这项任务遵循幸运轮模型,旋转决定支付,而参与者总是可以选择旋转轮子和安全支付。我们将轮盘任务的结果与完善的霍尔特和劳里任务(hl任务)的原始形式进行比较,并与使用轮盘说明的概率进行比较。我们收集了哥伦比亚和秘鲁农村的咖啡小农的数据,并在柬埔寨农村的小农中进行了试点。我们发现这三个任务的理解水平都很低。更具体地说,我们发现当使用轮盘说明hl任务中的概率时,理解或风险厌恶水平没有实质性差异。然而,游戏化会影响风险厌恶程度,尽管这些影响似乎与文化有关。
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
Agricultural Economics
Agricultural Economics 管理科学-农业经济与政策
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
4.90%
发文量
62
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Agricultural Economics aims to disseminate the most important research results and policy analyses in our discipline, from all regions of the world. Topical coverage ranges from consumption and nutrition to land use and the environment, at every scale of analysis from households to markets and the macro-economy. Applicable methodologies include econometric estimation and statistical hypothesis testing, optimization and simulation models, descriptive reviews and policy analyses. We particularly encourage submission of empirical work that can be replicated and tested by others.
×
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