Hostname: page-component-669899f699-chc8l Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T15:10:20.833Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The statistical power of individual-level risk preference estimation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2025

Brian Albert Monroe Open the ORCID record for Brian Albert Monroe [Opens in a new window]
Brian Albert Monroe*
Affiliation:
School of Philosophy, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
*
e-mail: brianalbertmonroe@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Accurately estimating risk preferences is of critical importance when evaluating data from many economic experiments or strategic interactions. I use a simulation model to conduct power analyses over two lottery batteries designed to classify individual subjects as being best explained by one of a number of alternative specifications of risk preference models. I propose a case in which there are only two possible alternatives for classification and find that the statistical methods used to classify subjects result in type I and type II errors at rates far beyond traditionally acceptable levels. These results suggest that subjects in experiments must make significantly more choices, or that traditional lottery pair batteries need to be substantially redesigned to make accurate inferences about the risk preference models that characterize a subject’s choices.

Keywords

Power analysisRisk preferencesExperimental economicsExpected utility theoryRank dependent utility

JEL classification

C52: Model Evaluation, Validation, and Selection C13: Estimation: General C12: Hypothesis Testing: General C18: Methodological Issues: General C90: General
Type
Original Paper
Information
Journal of the Economic Science Association , Volume 6 , Issue 2: Special Issue: Statistical Issues for Experimental Economists , December 2020 , pp. 168 - 188
Copyright
Copyright © Economic Science Association 2020

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 (https://doi.org/10.1007/s40881-020-00098-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Special thanks to Glenn Harrison, Don Ross, and Andre Hofmeyr for providing comments and feedback on this paper.

References

Andersen, S., Fountain, J., Harrison, G. W., Elisabet Rutström, E. (2014). Estimating subjective probabilities. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 48(3), 207–229. 10.1007/s11166-014-9194-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, S., Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., Elisabet Rutström, E. (2008). Eliciting risk and time preferences. Econometrica, 76(3), 583–618. 10.1111/j.1468-0262.2008.00848.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, D. E. (1982). Regret in decision making under uncertainty. Operations Research, 30(5), 961–981. 10.1287/opre.30.5.961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
De Long, J. B., Lang, K. (1992). Are all economic hypotheses false? Journal of Political Economy, 100(6), 1257–1272. 10.1086/261860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feiveson, A. H. (2002). Power by simulation. Stata Journal, 2(2), 107–124. 10.1177/1536867X0200200201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. (1956). Statistical methods and scientific inference, Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd 175.Google Scholar
Gelman, A., Loken, E. (2014). The statistical crisis in science. American Scientist, 102, 460–465. 10.1511/2014.111.460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, G. W., Elisabet Rutström, E., & Cox, J. C., Harrison, G. W. (2008). Risk aversion in the laboratory Research in experimental economics, Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited 41–196.Google Scholar
Harrison, G. W., Martínez-Correa, J., Todd Swarthout, J. (2015). Reduction of compound lotteries with objective probabilities: Theory and evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 119, 32–55. 10.1016/j.jebo.2015.07.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, G. W., Ng, J. M. (2016). Evaluating the expected welfare gain from insurance. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 83(1), 91–120. 10.1111/jori.12142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hey, J. D., Orme, C. (1994). Investigating generalizations of expected utility theory using experimental data. Econometrica, 62(6), 1291–1326. 10.2307/2951750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. Chance, 18(4), 40–47. 10.1080/09332480.2005.10722754 arXiv: 0208024 [gr-qc].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292. 10.2307/1914185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loomes, G., Sugden, R. (1982). Regret theory: An alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty. Economic Journal, 92(368), 805–824. 10.2307/2232669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loomes, G., Sugden, R. (1998). Testing different stochastic specifications of risky choice. Economica, 65, 581–598. 10.1111/1468-0335.00147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, D. N., Ziliak, S. T. (1996). The standard error of regressions. Journal of Economic Literature, 34, 97–114.Google Scholar
Prelec, D. (1998). The probability weighting function. Econometrica, 66(3), 497–527. 10.2307/2998573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quiggin, J. (1982). A theory of anticipated utility. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 3, 323–343. 10.1016/0167-2681(82)90008-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, N. T. (2008). Stochastic models for binary discrete choice under risk: A critical primer and econometric comparison. In Cox, J. C. & Harrison, G. W. (Ed.), Research in Experimental Economics, Vol. 12 (pp. 197–292). Bingley, U.K.: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
Wilcox, N. T. (2011). ‘Stochastically more risk averse:’ A contextual theory of stochastic discrete choice under risk. Journal of Econometrics, 162(1), 89–104. 10.1016/j.jeconom.2009.10.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, L., & Ortmann, A. (2013). Exploring the meaning of significance in experimental economics. Working Paper. Australian School of Business, University of New South Wales.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Monroe supplementary material

Monroe supplementary material
Download Monroe supplementary material(File)
File 1.5 MB