1980
DOI: 10.2307/1240194
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Attitudes Toward Risk: Experimental Measurement in Rural India

Abstract: Attitudes toward risk were measured in 140 households using two methods: an interview method eliciting certainty equivalents and an experimental gambling approach with real payoffs which, at their maximum, exceeded monthly incomes of unskilled laborers. The interview method is subject to interviewer bias and its results were totally inconsistent with the experimental measures of risk aversion. Experimental measures indicate that, at high payoff levels. v-irtually all individuals are moderately risk-averse with… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

65
786
14
23

Year Published

2007
2007
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1,297 publications
(888 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
65
786
14
23
Order By: Relevance
“…Economic field experiments exploring people's risk preferences in developing countries have a long tradition, starting with Binswanger (1980;. In more recent studies risk and time preferences have been jointly elaborated.…”
Section: Conceptual Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Economic field experiments exploring people's risk preferences in developing countries have a long tradition, starting with Binswanger (1980;. In more recent studies risk and time preferences have been jointly elaborated.…”
Section: Conceptual Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most studies on risk preferences use expected utility theory and implicitly assume that risk aversion comes solely from the concavity of a subject's utility function (Binswanger 1980;Wik et al 2004;Brick, Visser, and Burns 2012;Hardeweg, Menkhoff, and Waibel forthcoming). Tversky and Kahneman's (1979; prospect theory is an expansion of expected utility theory in two ways: (i) the differentiation in the value of gains and losses, and (ii) the weighting of outcome probabilities.…”
Section: Risk Preferencesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Risk neutral farmers (0 equals zero) only care about maximizing profits, so they generally choose to cultívate high profit, but risl<y crops. As farmers become more risk averse (0 > 0), they will refuse to accept risk and will choose less-risl<y crop mixes even if that means sacrificing part of their potential profit.^ Numerous theoretical (Friedman and Savage, 1948;Von Neuman and Morgenstern, 1944) and empirical studies (Binswanger, 1980;Chavas, 2004) indicate that farmers typically behave in risk-averse ways and that they behave as utility maximizers rather than profit maximizers only. Ignoring risk-averse behavior may actually lead to unacceptable and unreal results in farm planning models (Hazell and Norton, 1986).…”
Section: The Economic Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…20 The restriction to the unit interval is easily relaxed to allow γ to belong to any open interval (0, c) for a known constant c. The choice of c is consistent with findings in experimental studies of the elicitation of risk-aversion parameters (see e.g. Binswanger, 1980) which find that a substantial fraction of poor households in rural India have rates of risk-aversion within this interval. 21 The risk-aversion parameter γ is allowed to depend upon exogenous agent characteristics x a as well as malaria status (which implies state dependent utility).…”
Section: Parametric Utility Specificationmentioning
confidence: 71%