Hostname: page-component-669899f699-tpknm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T19:14:51.046Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Poverty and probability: aspiration and aversion to compound lotteries in El Salvador and India

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Dean Spears
Dean Spears*
Affiliation:
Wallace Hall, Economics Department, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA
*
e-mail: dspears@princeton.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Some experimental participants are averse to compound lotteries: they prefer simple lotteries that depend on only one random event, even when the simple lotteries offer lower expected value. This paper proposes that many behavioral “investments” represent more compound risk for poorer people—who often face multiple dimensions of deprivation—than for richer people. As a result, identical aversion to compound lotteries can prevent investment among poorer people, but have no effect on richer people. The paper reports five studies: two initial studies that document that aversion to compound lotteries operates as an economic preference, two “laboratory experiments in the field” in El Salvador, and one Internet survey experiment in India. Poorer Salvadoran women who choose a compound lottery are 27 percentage points more likely to have found formal employment than those who chose a simple lottery, but lottery choice is unrelated to employment for richer women. Poorer students at the national Salvadoran university choose more compound lotteries than richer students, on average, implying that aversion to compound lotteries screened out poorer aspirants but not richer ones. Poorer and lower-caste Indian participants who choose compound lotteries are more likely than those who choose simple lotteries to have a different occupation than their parents, which is not the case for better-off participants. These findings suggest that the consequences of aversion to compound lotteries are different in the context of poverty and disadvantage.

Keywords

PovertyReduction of compound lotteriesCompound riskEmploymentEl SalvadorIndiaLab experiments in the field

JEL classification

O12: Microeconomic Analyses of Economic Development D10: General J20: General D80: General
Type
Original Paper
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , September 2013 , pp. 263 - 284
Copyright
Copyright © 2012 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/s10683-012-9333-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

References

Akay, A., Martinsson, P., & Medhin, H. Trautmann, S. T. (2011). Attitudes toward uncertainty among the poor: an experiment in rural Ethiopia. Theory and Decision.Google Scholar
Bertrand, M., Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2004). A behavioral-economics view of poverty. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, 94(2), 419–423. 10.1257/0002828041302019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowles, S., Durlauf, S. N., & Hoff, K. (2006). Poverty traps, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s mechanical turk: a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data?. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5. 10.1177/1745691610393980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardenas, J. C. (2003). Real wealth and experimental cooperation: experiments in the field lab. Journal of Development Economics, 70, 263–289. 10.1016/S0304-3878(02)00098-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardenas, J. C., & Carpenter, J. (2008). Behavioural development economics: lessons from field labs in the developing world. Journal of Development Studies, 44(3), 311–338. 10.1080/00220380701848327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deaton, A. (2007). Global patterns of income and health: facts, interpretations, and policies. WIDER Annual Lecture 10. Helsinki, Finland: UNU-WIDER.Google Scholar
Deshpande, A. (2011). The grammar of caste: economic discrimination in contemporary India, New Delhi: Oxford University Press 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198072034.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engle Warnick, J. C., Escobal, J., & Laszlo, S. C. (2011). Ambiguity aversion and portfolio choice in small-scale Peruvian farming. The B.E. Journal in Economic Analysis & Policy, 11(1), 68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filmer, D., & Pritchett, L. H. (2001). Estimating wealth effects without expenditure data—or tears: an application to educational enrollments in states of India. Demography, 38(1), 115–132.Google ScholarPubMed
Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25–42. 10.1257/089533005775196732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halevy, Y. (2007). Ellsberg revisited: an experimental study. Econometrica, 75(2), 503–536. 10.1111/j.1468-0262.2006.00755.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, G. W., Humphrey, S. J., & Verschoor, A. (2009). Choice under uncertainty: evidence from Ethiopia, India, and Uganda. Economic Journal, 120, 80–104. 10.1111/j.1468-0297.2009.02303.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–135. 10.1017/S0140525X0999152XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hey, J. D., & Lee, J. (2005). Do subjects separate (or are they sophisticated)?. Experimental Economics, 8(3), 233–265. 10.1007/s10683-005-1465-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoff, K., Kshetramade, M., & Fehr, E. (2011). Caste and punishment: the legacy of caste culture in norm enforcement. Economic Journal, 121, F449–F475. 10.1111/j.1468-0297.2011.02476.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphrey, S. J., & Verschoor, A. (2004). The probability-weighting function: experimental evidence from Uganda, India and Ethiopia. Economics Letters, 84, 419–425. 10.1016/j.econlet.2004.02.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeBlanc, A. N. (2003). Random family: love, drugs, trouble, and coming of age in the Bronx, New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 867–872. 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paolacci, G., & Chandler, J. Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon mechanical turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(5).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massey, D. S., & Sampson, R. J. (2009). Moynihan redux: legacies and lessons. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 621, 6–27. 10.1177/0002716208325122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ronen, J. (1971). Some effects of sequential aggregation in accounting on decision-making. Journal of Accounting Research, 9(2), 307–332. 10.2307/2489936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, N., & Santos, P. Capon, T. (2010). Risk, ambiguity and the adoption of new technologies: experimental evidence from a developing economy. Working paper, University of Sydney.Google Scholar
Segal, U. (1987). The Ellsberg paradox and risk aversion: an anticipated utility approach. International Economic Review, 28, 175–202. 10.2307/2526866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Seo, K. (2009). Ambiguity and second-order belief. Econometrica, 77(5), 1575–1605. 10.3982/ECTA6727Google Scholar
Spears, D. (2011). Economic decision-making in poverty depletes behavioral control. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 11.1.Google Scholar
Tanaka, T., Camerer, C., & Nguyen, Q. (2010). Risk and time preferences: linking experimental and household survey data from Vietnam. American Economic Review, 100(1), 557–571. 10.1257/aer.100.1.557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voors, M., et al. (2010). Does conflict affect preferences? Results from field experiments in Burundi. MICROCON Research Working Paper 21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Spears supplementary material

Standard Adult Consent Form
Download Spears supplementary material(File)
File 738.8 KB