Risk Preferences Around the World

References

• Abdellaoui M (2000) Parameter-free elicitation of utilities and probability weighting functions. Management Sci. 46(11):1497–1512.Link, Google Scholar
• Abdellaoui M, Bleichrodt H, Paraschiv C (2007) Loss aversion under prospect theory: A parameter-free measurement. Management Sci. 53(10):1659–1674.Link, Google Scholar
• Agnew JR, Anderson LR, Gerlach JR, Szykman LR (2008) Who chooses annuities? An experimental investigation of the role of gender, framing, and defaults. Amer. Econom. Rev. 98(2):418–442.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bardsley N, Cubitt R, Loomes G, Moffatt P, Starmer C, Sugden R (2009) Experimental Economics: Rethinking the Rules (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
• Bartke S (2007) Bestimmungsfaktoren individueller Risikopräferenzen im internationalem Vergleich [Determinants of individual risk preferences in an international comparison] (GRIN Verlag, Norderstedt, Germany).Google Scholar
• Bateman I, Kahneman D, Munro A, Starmer C, Sugden R (2005) Testing competing models of loss aversion: An adversarial collaboration. J. Public Econom. 89(8):1561–1580.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Becker GM, DeGroot MH, Marschak J (1964) Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behavioral Sci. 9(3):226–232.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Binswanger HP (1981) Attitudes toward risk: Theoretical implications of an experiment in rural India. Econom. J. 91(364):867–890.Google Scholar
• Bleichrodt H, Pinto JL (2000) A parameter-free elicitation of the probability weighting function in medical decision analysis. Management Sci. 46(11):1485–1496.Link, Google Scholar
• Bontempo RN, Bottom WP, Weber EU (1997) Cross-cultural differences in risk perception: A model-based approach. Risk Anal. 17(4):479–488.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Booij AS, van de Kuilen G (2009) A parameter-free analysis of the utility of money for the general population under prospect theory. J. Econom. Psych. 30(4):651–666.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Borghans L, Golsteyn BHH, Heckman JJ, Meijers H (2009) Gender differences in risk aversion and ambiguity aversion. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 7(2–3):649–658.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Breuer W, Rieger MO, Soypak C (2012) The behavioral foundations of corporate dividend policy: A cross-country empirical analysis. Working paper, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.Google Scholar
• Brooks P, Zank H (2005) Loss adverse behavior. J. Risk Uncertainty 31(3):301–325.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Byrnes JP, Miller DC, Shafer WD (1999) Gender differences in risk taking: A meta analysis. Psych. Bull. 125(3):367–383.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Camerer CF, Hogarth RM (1999) The effects of financial incentives in experiments: A review and capital-labor-production framework. J. Risk Uncertainty 19(1–3):7–42.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen Z, Epstein L (2002) Ambiguity, risk, and asset returns in continuous time. Econometrica 70(4):1403–1443.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chhokar JS, Brodbeck FC, House RJ, eds. (2008) Culture and Leadership Across the World: The GLOBE Book of in-Depth Studies of 25 Societies (Routledge, New York).Google Scholar
• Chui ACW, Titman S, Wei KCJ (2010) Individualism and momentum around the world. J. Finance 65(1):361–392.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Croson R, Gneezy U (2009) Gender differences in preferences. J. Econom. Literature 47(2):1–27.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dohmen T, Falk A, Huffman D, Sunde U, Schupp J, Wagner GG (2011) Individual risk attitudes: Measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 9(3):522–550.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eckel CC, Grossman PJ (2008) Men, women and risk aversion: Experimental evidence. Plott CR, Smith VL, eds. Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, Vol. 1 (Elsevier, Amsterdam), 1061–1073.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ellsberg D (1961) Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. Quart. J. Econom. 75(4):643–669.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fafchamps M, Pender J (1997) Precautionary saving, credit constraints, and irreversible investment: Theory and evidence from semiarid India. J. Bus. Econom. Statist. 15(2):180–194.Google Scholar
• Fan JX, Xiao JJ (2006) Cross-cultural differences in risk tolerance: A comparison between Chinese and Americans. J. Personal Finance 5(3):54–75.Google Scholar
• Fehr-Duda H, De Gennaro M, Schubert R (2006) Gender, financial risk, and probability weights. Theory Decision 60(2–3):283–313.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gneezy U, List JA, Wu G (2006) The uncertainty effect: When a risky prospect is valued less than its worst possible outcome. Quart. J. Econom. 121(4):1283–1309.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gollier C (2011) Portfolio choices and asset prices: The comparative statics of ambiguity aversion. Rev. Econom. Stud. 78(4):1329–1344.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gonzalez R, Wu G (1999) On the shape of the probability weighting function. Cognitive Psych. 38(1):129–166.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guiso L, Sapienza P, Zingales L (2006) Does culture affect economic outcomes? J. Econom. Perspect. 20(2):23–48.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrison GW, Humphrey SJ, Verschoor A (2010) Choice under uncertainty: Evidence from Ethiopia, India and Uganda. Econom. J. 120(543):80–104.Google Scholar
• Hartog J, Ferrer-i-Carbonell A, Jonker N (2002) Linking measured risk aversion to individual characteristics. Kyklos 55(1):3–26.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Herrmann B, Thöni C, Gächter S (2008) Antisocial punishment across societies. Science 319(5868):1362–1367.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hofstede G (1991) The confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic growth. Organ. Dynam. 16(4):4–18.Google Scholar
• Hofstede G (2001) Culture’s Consequences, Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).Google Scholar
• Hofstede G, McCrae RR (2004) Personality and culture revisited: Linking traits and dimension of culture. Cross-Cultural Res. 38(1):52–88.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hsee CK, Weber EU (1999) Cross-national differences in risk preference and lay predictions. J. Behavioral Decision Making 12(2):165–179.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–291.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levin IP, Snyder MA, Chapman DP (1988) The interaction of experiential and situational factors and gender in a simulated risky decision making task. J. Psych. 122(2):173–181.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Liu E (2013) Time to change what to sow: Risk preferences and technology adoption decisions of cotton farmers in China. Rev. Econom. Statist. 95(4):1386–1403.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mosley P, Verschoor A (2005) Risk attitudes and the “vicious circle of poverty”. Eur. J. Development Res. 17(1):59–88.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nielsen U (2001) Poverty and attitude towards time and risk—Experimental evidence from Madagascar. Technical report, Department of Economics and Natural Resources, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
• Porter ME, Schwab K (2008) The global competitiveness report 2008–2009. Technical report, World Economic Forum, Geneva.Google Scholar
• Rabin M (2000) Risk aversion and expected-utility theory: A calibration theorem. Econometrica 68(5):1281–1292.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rieger MO, Wang M (2006) Cumulative prospect theory and the St. Petersburg paradox. Econom. Theory 28(3):665–679.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rieger MO, Wang M (2012) Can ambiguity aversion solve the equity premium puzzle? Survey evidence from international data. Finance Res. Lett. 9(2):63–72.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schmidt U, Traub S (2002) An experimental test of loss aversion. J. Risk Uncertainty 25(3):233–249.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schubert R, Brown M, Gysler M, Brachinger HW (1999) Financial decision making: Are women really more risk averse? Gender and economic transactions. Amer. Econom. Rev. 89(2):381–385.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shefrin H, Thaler RH (1988) The behavioral life-cycle hypothesis. Econom. Inquiry 26(4):609–643.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Starmer C (2000) Developments in non-expected utility theory: The hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk. J. Econom. Literature 38(2):332–382.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Statman M (2008) Countries and culture in behavioral finance. CFA Inst. Conf. Proc. Quart. 5(3):38–44.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tanaka T, Camerer CF, Nguyen Q (2010) Risk and time preferences: Linking experimental and household survey data from Vietnam. Amer. Econom. Rev. 100(1):557–571.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D (1992) Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertainty 5(4):297–323.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vieider FM, Chmura T, Martinsson P (2012) Risk attitude, development, and growth: Macroeconomic evidence from experiments in 30 countries. Working paper, WZB, Berlin.Google Scholar
• von Gaudecker H-M, van Soest A, Wenström E (2011) Heterogeneity in risky choice behavior in a broad population. Amer. Econom. Rev. 101(2):664–694.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wakker PP (2010) Prospect Theory: For Risk and Ambiguity (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wakker P, Deneffe D (1996) Eliciting von Neumann-Morgenstern utilities when probabilities are distorted or unknown. Management Sci. 42(8):1131–1150.Link, Google Scholar
• Wang M, Fischbeck PS (2004) Incorporating framing into prospect theory modeling: A mixture-model approach. J. Risk Uncertainty 29(2):181–197.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wang M, Fischbeck PS (2008) Evaluating lotteries, risks, and risk-mitigation programs. J. Risk Res. 11(6):775–795.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weber EU, Hsee C (1998) Cross-cultural differences in risk perception, but cross-cultural similarities in attitudes towards perceived risk. Management Sci. 44(9):1205–1217.Link, Google Scholar
• Wik M, Holden S (1998) Experimental studies of peasant’s attitudes toward risk in northern Zambia. Discussion Paper D14, Department of Economics and Social Sciences, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås.Google Scholar
• Yesuf M, Bluffstone R (2008) Wealth and time preference in rural Ethiopia. EfD Discussion Paper 08-16, Environment for Development Initiative and Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.Google Scholar