The DOI matches its Crossref record; 68 of the 68 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Heterogeneity in Risky Choice Behavior in a Broad Population
Open accessAbstract
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)
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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 the citing paper
“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]
Citations
Cites
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524
Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk
Kahneman, D. J., & Tversky, A. (1988) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511609220.014 · Cited by 32,720
Theory of games and economic behavior
Garcia, S. R., & Miller, S. J. (2019) · American Mathematical Society eBooks · doi:10.1090/mbk/121/32 · Cited by 16,777
Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1007/bf00122574 · Cited by 15,467
Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation
Train, K. E. (2001) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511805271 · Cited by 7,784
Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects
Holt, C. A., & Laury, S. K. (2002) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/000282802762024700 · Cited by 5,893
Gender Differences in Preferences
Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.47.2.448 · Cited by 5,694
Risk Aversion in the Small and in the Large
Pratt, J. W. (1964) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1913738 · Cited by 4,976
Risk Aversion in the Small and in the Large
Pratt, J. W. (1976) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1912743 · Cited by 4,702
Allais, M. (1953) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1907921 · Cited by 4,054
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Ahlbrecht Martin, 1996, Journal of institutional and Theoretical Economics, 152, 593
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Gender Differences in Preferences
Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.47.2.448 · Cited by 5,694
Experimental methods: Eliciting risk preferences
Charness, G., Uri Gneezy, B., & Imas, A. (2012) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2012.12.023 · Cited by 824
Adolescents’ risk-taking behavior is driven by tolerance to ambiguity
Tymula, A., Rosenberg Belmaker, L. A., Roy, A. K., Ruderman, L., Manson, K., Glimcher, P. W., & Levy, I. (2012) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1207144109 · Cited by 387
Higher Order Risk Attitudes, Demographics, and Financial Decisions
NOUSSAIR, C. N., Trautmann, S. T., & van de Kuilen, G. (2013) · The Review of Economic Studies · doi:10.1093/restud/rdt032 · Cited by 380
Does Africa Need a Rotten Kin Theorem? Experimental Evidence from Village Economies
Jakiela, P., & Ozier, O. W. (2015) · The Review of Economic Studies · doi:10.1093/restud/rdv033 · Cited by 385
Metadata
- 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)
- ORCID
- Wengström, Erik
- Venue
- American Economic Review
- Publisher
- American Economic Association
- 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
- Open access
- 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 › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › 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
