风险态度:集中趋势偏差

IF 2.3 Q3 MANAGEMENT
Karl Akbari, Markus Eigruber, Rudolf Vetschera
{"title":"风险态度:集中趋势偏差","authors":"Karl Akbari, Markus Eigruber, Rudolf Vetschera","doi":"10.1016/j.ejdp.2023.100042","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Unincentivized measurement instruments of risk attitudes suffer from several weaknesses. One is that respondents do not consistently assign themselves to their respective risk preference categories. In particular, they are subject to a central tendency bias and classify themselves as risk-neutral when they are in fact not. We test the robustness of the central tendency bias in lottery-type questions for risk evaluations and offer an explanation of why respondents behave in a way that contradicts plausible utility models. We explore a wide range of alternative influencing factors, including careless responding, stake levels, deviations in expected value, the cognitive abilities of the respondents, self-assessment of risk attitudes, and monetary incentives. We find that careless responding and higher stakes increase the central tendency bias in risk assessment, while cognitive capabilities and extreme risk self-assessments (both positive and negative) decrease the bias. Deviations in expected value and incentives do not affect the bias. Our study further points to the fact that such problems have to be taken care of explicitly when eliciting risk attitudes.</p>","PeriodicalId":44104,"journal":{"name":"EURO Journal on Decision Processes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Risk attitudes: The Central Tendency Bias\",\"authors\":\"Karl Akbari, Markus Eigruber, Rudolf Vetschera\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ejdp.2023.100042\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Unincentivized measurement instruments of risk attitudes suffer from several weaknesses. One is that respondents do not consistently assign themselves to their respective risk preference categories. In particular, they are subject to a central tendency bias and classify themselves as risk-neutral when they are in fact not. We test the robustness of the central tendency bias in lottery-type questions for risk evaluations and offer an explanation of why respondents behave in a way that contradicts plausible utility models. We explore a wide range of alternative influencing factors, including careless responding, stake levels, deviations in expected value, the cognitive abilities of the respondents, self-assessment of risk attitudes, and monetary incentives. We find that careless responding and higher stakes increase the central tendency bias in risk assessment, while cognitive capabilities and extreme risk self-assessments (both positive and negative) decrease the bias. Deviations in expected value and incentives do not affect the bias. Our study further points to the fact that such problems have to be taken care of explicitly when eliciting risk attitudes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44104,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"EURO Journal on Decision Processes\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"EURO Journal on Decision Processes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejdp.2023.100042\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EURO Journal on Decision Processes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejdp.2023.100042","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

不受激励的风险态度测量工具有几个弱点。一是受访者没有始终如一地将自己分配到各自的风险偏好类别。特别是,他们受到集中倾向偏差的影响,并将自己归类为风险中性,而实际上并非如此。我们在风险评估的彩票类型问题中测试了集中倾向偏差的稳健性,并解释了为什么受访者的行为方式与合理的实用新型相矛盾。我们探讨了广泛的其他影响因素,包括粗心的回应、利害关系水平、期望值偏差、受访者的认知能力、风险态度的自我评估和金钱激励。研究发现,草率反应和高风险会增加风险评估的集中倾向偏差,而认知能力和极端风险自我评估(积极和消极)会降低风险评估的集中倾向偏差。期望值和激励的偏差不影响偏差。我们的研究进一步指出,在引发风险态度时,这些问题必须得到明确的照顾。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Risk attitudes: The Central Tendency Bias

Unincentivized measurement instruments of risk attitudes suffer from several weaknesses. One is that respondents do not consistently assign themselves to their respective risk preference categories. In particular, they are subject to a central tendency bias and classify themselves as risk-neutral when they are in fact not. We test the robustness of the central tendency bias in lottery-type questions for risk evaluations and offer an explanation of why respondents behave in a way that contradicts plausible utility models. We explore a wide range of alternative influencing factors, including careless responding, stake levels, deviations in expected value, the cognitive abilities of the respondents, self-assessment of risk attitudes, and monetary incentives. We find that careless responding and higher stakes increase the central tendency bias in risk assessment, while cognitive capabilities and extreme risk self-assessments (both positive and negative) decrease the bias. Deviations in expected value and incentives do not affect the bias. Our study further points to the fact that such problems have to be taken care of explicitly when eliciting risk attitudes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
10.00%
发文量
15
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信