On the validity of elicited risk attitudes
Paolo Crosetto
(INRAE - French National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food, and Environment)
ESF Room S309
Personal website
Increasing evidence points to the fact that the behavioral measures we use to elicit risk attitudes fail us. In recent years evidence has accumulated that our measures 1. correlate poorly with self-reported risk attitudes, real-world risk behaviors, and among themselves; 2. introduce distinct measurement errors and behavioral biases; 3. are not robust to sit-resit exercises.
Why do Risk Elicitation Tasks (RET) show so little predictive validity? Despite the large number of studies comparing risk elicitation procedures, the extent to which current RETs are able to capture self-reported or out-of-the-lab behavior is still partly unknown. Since each study can cover only a limited subset of tasks and self-reported or real-world behaviors, the map of the cross-correlations across tasks and behavior is far from being complete.
Luckily, the data to create such a map already exists. Experimental economists have been routinely eliciting risk attitudes for over three decades. In this presentation, I describe what we know so far about the psychometric validity of elicited risk attitudes, present a comprehensive, large dataset of the external validity of RETs, and describe two experimental designs (no data yet) aimed at tackling two of the main problems identified in the previous analyses -- measurement error and risk perception and modeling.
The ongoing effort, code and paper can be found at https://github.com/paolocrosetto/METARET and all data can be explored interactively at https://paolocrosetto.shinyapps.io/METARET_APP/
This event is both online and in person. Join the Teams meeting