Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-kcxw8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-12T04:51:17.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Past experience of uncertainty affects risk aversion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Friederike Mengel ,
Elias Tsakas  and
Alexander Vostroknutov
Friederike Mengel*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester CO4 3SQ, UK Department of Economics (AE1), Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands
Elias Tsakas
Affiliation:
Department of Economics (AE1), Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands
Alexander Vostroknutov*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics (AE1), Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands
*
fr.mengel@gmail.com
a.vostroknutov79@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In an experiment with more than 500 participants we study how past experience of uncertainty (imperfect knowledge of the state space) affects risk preferences. Participants in our experiment choose between a sure outcome and a lottery in 32 periods. All treatments are exactly identical in periods 17–32 but differ in periods 1–16. In the early periods of the risk treatment there is perfect information about the lottery; in the ambiguity Treatment participants perfectly know the outcome space but not the associated probabilities; in the unawareness treatment participants have imperfect knowledge about both outcomes and probabilities. We observe strong treatment effects on behavior in periods 17–32. In particular, participants who have been exposed to an environment with very imperfect knowledge of the state space subsequently choose lotteries with high (low) variance less (more) often compared to other participants. Estimating individual risk attitudes from choices in periods 17–32 we find that the distribution of risk attitude parameters across our treatments can be ranked in terms of first order stochastic dominance. Our results show how exposure to environments with different degrees of uncertainty can affect individuals’ subsequent risk-taking behavior.

Keywords

Risk preferencesAmbiguityUnawarenessExperiments

JEL classification

C91: Laboratory, Individual Behavior D81: Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty D80: General

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 151 - 176
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 Economic Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-015-9431-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

References

Alesina, A, & Fuchs-Schuendeln, N (2007). Good bye lenin (or not)? The effect of communism on people’s preferences. American Economic Review, 97(4), 1507–1529. 10.1257/aer.97.4.1507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, S, Harrison, GW, Lau, MI, & Rutström, EE (2008). Lost in state space: Are preferences stable?. International Economic Review, 49, 1091–1112. 10.1111/j.1468-2354.2008.00507.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barseghyan, L, Prince, J, & Teitelbaum, JC (2011). Are risk preferences stable across contexts? Evidence from insurance data. American Economic Review, 101, 591–631. 10.1257/aer.101.2.591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barsky, RB, Kimball, MS, Juster, FT, & Shapiro, MD (1997). Preference parameters and behavioral heterogeneity: An experimental approach in the health and retirement survey. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 537–579. 10.1162/003355397555280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, GM, DeGroot, MH, & Marschak, J (1964). Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behavioral Science, 9(3), 226–232. 10.1002/bs.3830090304CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Callen, M, Isaqzadeh, M, Long, J, & Sprenger, C (2014). Violence and risk preference: Experimental evidence from Afghanistan. American Economic Review, 104(1), 123–148. 10.1257/aer.104.1.123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cason, T, & Plott, C (2014). Misconceptions and game form recognition: Challenges to theories of revealed preference and framing. Journal of Political Economy, 122, 1235–1270. 10.1086/677254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dekel, E, Lipman, B, & Rustichini, A (1998). Standard state-space models preclude unawareness. Econometrica, 66(1), 159–173. 10.2307/2998545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dohmen, T, Falk, A, Huffman, D, Sunde, U, Schupp, J, & Wagner, GG (2011). Individual risk attitudes: Measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. Journal of the European Economic Association, 9(3), 522–550. 10.1111/j.1542-4774.2011.01015.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einav, L, Finkelstein, A, Pascu, I, & Cullen, M (2012). How general are risk preferences? Choices under uncertainty in different domains. American Economic Review, 102(6), 2606–2638. 10.1257/aer.102.6.2606CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellsberg, D (1961). Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75(4), 643–669. 10.2307/1884324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fagin, R, & Halpern, J (1988). Belief, awareness, and limited reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 34, 39–76. 10.1016/0004-3702(87)90003-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feinberg, Y (2009). Games with unawareness, Stanford: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Fischbacher, U (2007). z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10(2), 171–178. 10.1007/s10683-006-9159-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giuliano, P., & Spilimbergo, A. (2009). Growing up in a recession: Beliefs and the macroeconomy. NBER, IZA, IMF, WDI and CEPR: UCLA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gneezy, U, Rustichini, A, & Vostroknutov, A (2010). Experience and insight in the race game. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 75, 144–155. 10.1016/j.jebo.2010.04.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gollier, C (2011). Portfolio choices and asset prices: The comparative statics of ambiguity aversion. Review of Economic Studies, 78(4), 1329–1344. 10.1093/restud/rdr013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gossner, O., & Tsakas, E. (2010). A reasoning approach to introspection and unawareness. METEOR Research Memorandum RM/10/006, Maastricht University.Google Scholar
Gossner, O, & Tsakas, E (2012). Reasoning-based introspection. Theory and Decision, 73, 513–523. 10.1007/s11238-011-9284-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halevy, Y (2007). Ellsberg revisited: An experimental study. Econometrica, 75, 503–536. 10.1111/j.1468-0262.2006.00755.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halpern, JY, & Rêgo, LC (2008). Interactive unawareness revisited. Games and Economic Behavior, 62(1), 232–262. 10.1016/j.geb.2007.01.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halpern, JY, & Rêgo, LC (2009). Reasoning about knowledge of unawareness. Games and Economic Behavior, 67(2), 503–525. 10.1016/j.geb.2009.02.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heifetz, A, Meier, M, & Schipper, BC (2006). Interactive unawareness. Journal of Economic Theory, 130, 78–94. 10.1016/j.jet.2005.02.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heifetz, A, Meier, M, & Schipper, BC (2008). A canonical model of interactive unawareness. Games and Economic Behavior, 62, 304–324. 10.1016/j.geb.2007.07.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karni, E, & Safra, Z (1987). Preference reversal and the observability of preferences by experimental methods. Econometrica, 55(3), 675–685. 10.2307/1913606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y-I, & Lee, J (2014). The long-run impact of a traumatic experience on risk aversion. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 108, 174–186. 10.1016/j.jebo.2014.09.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, F (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Levy, H, & Markowitz, HM (1979). Approximating expected utility by a function of mean and variance. American Economic Review, 69, 308–317.Google Scholar
Li, J (2009). Information structures with unawareness. Journal of Economic Theory, 144, 977–993. 10.1016/j.jet.2008.10.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maccheroni, F, Marinacci, M, & Rustichini, A (2006). Ambiguity aversion, robustness, and the variational representation of preferences. Econometrica, 74(6), 1447–1498. 10.1111/j.1468-0262.2006.00716.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malmendier, U, & Nagel, S (2011). Depression babies: Do macroeconomic experiences affect risk taking?. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126(1), 373–416. 10.1093/qje/qjq004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markowitz, H (1952). Portfolio selection. Journal of Finance, 7(1), 77–91.Google Scholar
McFadden, D (1976). Quantal choice analysis: A survey. Annals of Economics and Social Measurement, 5, 363–390.Google Scholar
Modica, S, & Rustichini, A (1994). Awareness and partitional information structures. Theory and Decision, 37(1), 107–124. 10.1007/BF01079207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Modica, S, & Rustichini, A (1999). Unawareness and partitional information structures. Games and Economic Behavior, 27, 265–298. 10.1006/game.1998.0666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nishiyama, Y (2006). The asian financial crisis and investors’ risk aversion. Asia-Pacific Financial Markets, 13, 181–205. 10.1007/s10690-007-9041-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osili, U. O., & Paulson, A. (2009). Banking crises and investor confidence: An empirical investigation. Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis and Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.Google Scholar
Preuschoff, K, Bossaerts, P, & Quartz, SR (2006). Neural differentiation of expected reward and risk in human subcortical structures. Neuron, 51(3), 381–390. 10.1016/j.neuron.2006.06.024CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sharpe, W (2008). Investors and markets: Portfolio choices, asset prices and investment advice, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Starmer, C, & Sugden, R (1991). Does the random-lottery incentive system elicit true preferences? An experimental investigation. American Economic Review, 81(4), 971–978.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Mengel et al. supplementary material

Supplementary Material - Online Appendix
Download Mengel et al. supplementary material(File)
File 173.3 KB