Cited by 353Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsExperimental Behavioral Economics StudiesEconomic and Environmental Valuation

Heterogeneity in Risky Choice Behavior in a Broad Population

Open access
von Gaudecker, Hans-Martin, van Soest, Arthur, Wengström, Erik·2011·American Economic Review

Abstract

We analyze risk preferences using an experiment with real incentives in a representative sample of 1,422 Dutch respondents. Our econometric model incorporates four structural parameters that vary with observed and unobserved characteristics: utility curvature, loss aversion, preferences toward the timing of uncertainty resolution, and the propensity to choose randomly rather than on the basis of preferences. We find that all four parameters contribute to explaining choice behavior. The structural parameters are significantly associated with socioeconomic variables, but it is essential to incorporate unobserved heterogeneity in each of them to match the rich variety of choice patterns in the data. (JEL D12, D81)

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1257/aer.101.2.664

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In human subjects (our experiment) and prior studies, rationality score and preference differ across demographic groups.

    “These are in contrast to results of our human experiment (SI Appendix, Tables S5 and S6) and prior studies where rationality score and preference have been shown to differ across demographic groups (22, 28, 61).”

    From The emergence of economic rationality of GPT (2023) · cites this paper as [61]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
von Gaudecker, H.-M., van Soest, A., & Wengström, E.
Affiliations
  • Department of Economics, Universität Mannheim, L7 3-5, 68131 Mannheim, Germany.
  • Netspar, Tilburg University, P.O. Box 90153, NL-5000 LE Tilburg, Netherlands.
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
Venue
American Economic Review
Published
2011-04-01
Volume
101
Issue
2
Pages
664-694
ISSN
  • 0002-8282 (ISSN-L)
  • 1944-7981
OpenAlex
W1505758174
Cited by
349
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 24
FWCI
13.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • American Economic Review (publishedVersion)
  • Research portal (Tilburg University) (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Environmental Valuation
Keywords
decision making under risk, risk preferences, preference heterogeneity, loss aversion, utility curvature, random choice, unobserved heterogeneity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review