The Preference Survey Module: A Validated Instrument for Measuring Risk, Time, and Social Preferences

References

• Andersen S, Harrison G, Lau M, Rutström E (2008) Eliciting risk and time preferences. Econometrica 76(3):583–618.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andreoni J, Sprenger C (2012) Estimating time preferences from convex budgets. Amer. Econom. Rev. 102(7):3333–3356.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bandiera O, Barankay I, Rasul I (2005) Social preferences and the response to incentives: Evidence from personnel data. Quart. J. Econom. 120(3):917–962.Google Scholar
• Barasinska N, Schäfer D, Stephan A (2012) Individual risk attitudes and the composition of financial portfolios: Evidence from German household portfolios. Quart. Rev. Econom. Finance 52(1):1–14.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barseghyan L, Prince J, Teitelbaum JC (2011) Are risk preferences stable across contexts? Evidence from insurance data. Amer. Econom. Rev. 101(2):591–631.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bauernschuster S, Falck O, Heblich S, Suedekum J, Lameli A (2014) Why are educated and risk-loving persons more mobile across regions? J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 98:56–69.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berg J, Dickhaut J, McCabe K (1995) Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games Econom. Behav. 10(1):122–142.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bertsimas D, King A, Mazumder R (2016) Best subset selection via a modern optimization lens. Ann. Statist. 44(2):813–852.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blackburn M, Harrison GW, Rutström EE (1994) Statistical bias functions and informative hypothetical surveys. Amer. J. Agricultural Econom. 76(5):1084–1088.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bonin H, Dohmen T, Falk A, Huffman D, Sunde U (2007) Cross-sectional earnings risk and occupational sorting: The role of risk attitudes. Labour Econom. 14(6):926–937.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Caliendo M, Fossen FM, Kritikos AS (2009) Risk attitudes of nascent entrepreneurs: New evidence from an experimentally validated survey. Small Bus. Econom. 32(2):153–167.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chapman GB (1996) Temporal discounting and utility for health and money. J. Experiment. Psych. Learn. Memory Cognition 22(3):771–791.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chapman J, Snowberg E, Wang S, Camerer C (2018) Loss attitudes in the US population: Evidence from dynamically optimized sequential experimentation (DOSE). NBER Working Paper Series, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Cohn A, Engelmann J, Fehr E, Marechal MA (2015) Evidence for countercyclical risk aversion: An experiment with financial professionals. Amer. Econom. Rev. 105(2):860–885.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cornsweet TN (1962) The staircase-method in psychophysics. Amer. J. Psych. 75(3):485–491.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ding X, Hartog J, Sun Y (2010) Can we measure risk attitudes in a survey? IZA Discussion Paper No. 4807.Google Scholar
• Dohmen T, Falk A (2011) Performance pay and multidimensional sorting: Productivity, preferences, and gender. Amer. Econom. Rev. 101(2):556–590.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dohmen T, Falk A, Huffman D, Sunde U, Schupp J, Wagner G (2011) Individual risk attitudes: Measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 9(3):522–550.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Einav L, Finkelstein A, Pascu I, Cullen MR (2012) How general are risk preferences? Choices under uncertainty in different domains. Amer. Econom. Rev. 102(6):2606–2638.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ellingsen T, Johannesson M, Mollerstrom J, Munkhammar S (2012) Social framing effects: Preferences or beliefs? Games Econom. Behav. 76(1):117–130.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Falk A, Kosfeld M (2006) The hidden costs of control. Amer. Econom. Rev. 96(5):1611–1630.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Falk A, Zimmermann F (2016) Consistency as a signal of skills. Management Sci. 63(7):2197–2210.Link, Google Scholar
• Falk A, Zimmermann F (2018) Information processing and commitment. Econom. J. 613(1):1983–2002.Google Scholar
• Falk A, Fehr E, Fischbacher U (2005) Driving forces behind informal sanctions. Econometrica 73(6):2017–2030.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Falk A, Becker A, Dohmen T, Enke B, Huffman D, Sunde U (2018) Global evidence on economic preferences. Quart. J. Econom. 133(4):313–332.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fan X (2003) Two approaches for correcting correlation attenuation caused by measurement error: Implications for research practice. Educational Psych. Measurement 63(6):915–930.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Fischbacher U, Rosenbladt B, Schupp J, Wagner G (2002) A nation-wide laboratory: Examining trust and trustworthiness by integrating behavioral experiments into representative surveys. Schmollers Jahrbuch 122(4):519–542.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Festinger L (1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fischbacher U (2007) zTree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experiment. Econom. 10:171–178.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fouarge D, Kriechel B, Dohmen T (2014) Occupational sorting of school graduates: The role of economic preferences. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 106:335–351.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gillen B, Snowberg E, Yariv L (2019) Experimenting with measurement error: Techniques with applications to the caltech cohort study. J. Political Econom. 127(4):1826–1863.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greiner B (2004) An online recruitment system for economic experiments. Kremer K, Macho V, eds. Forschung und wissenschaftliches Rechnen (Gesellschaft für Wissenschaftliche Datenverarbeitung, Göttingen, Germany), 79–93.Google Scholar
• Greiner B (2015) Subject pool recruitment procedures: Organizing experiments with ORSEE. J. Econom. Sci. Assoc. 1(1):114–125.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Güth W, Schmittberger R, Schwarze B (1982) An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 3(4):367–388.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hardeweg B, Menkhoff L, Waibel H (2013) Experimentally-validated survey evidence on individual risk attitudes in rural Thailand. Econom. Development Cultural Change 61(4):859–888.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrison GW, Rutström E (2008) Experimental evidence on the existence of hypothetical bias in value elicitation methods. Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, vol. 1 (Elsevier B.V., Amsterdam, Netherlands), 752–767.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrison G, Lau M, Williams M (2002) Estimating individual discount rates for Denmark: A field experiment. Amer. Econom. Rev. 92(5):1606–1617.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hocking RR, Leslie R (1967) Selection of the best subset in regression analysis. Technometrics 9(4):531–540.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Holt CA, Laury SK (2002) Risk aversion and incentive effects. Amer. Econom. Rev. 92(5):1644–1655.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jaeger DA, Dohmen T, Falk A, Huffman D, Sunde U, Bonin H (2010) Direct evidence on risk attitudes and migration. Rev. Econom. Statist. 92(3):684–689.Crossref, Google Scholar
• List JA, Gallet CA (2001) What experimental protocol influences disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? Environ. Resource Econom. 20(3):241–254.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Murphy JJ, Allen PG, Stevens TH, Weatherhead D (2005) A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environ. Resource Econom. 30(3):313–325.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Perugini M, Gallucci M, Presaghi F, Ercolani A (2003) The personal norm of reciprocity. Eur. J. Personality 17(4):251–283.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Selten R (1967) Die Strategiemethode zur Erforschung des eingeschränkt rationalen Verhaltens im Rahmen eines Oligopolexperiments. Sauermann H, ed. Beiträge zur experimentellen Wirtschaftsforschung(J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tübingen, Germany), 136–168.Google Scholar
• Slovic P (1995) The construction of preference. Amer. Psychologist 50(5):364–371.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Spearman C (1904) The proof and measurement of association between two things. Amer. J. Psych. 15(1):72–101.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tibshirani R (1996) Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. J. Royal Statist. Soc. B 58(1):267–288.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Toubia O, Johnson E, Evgeniou T, Delquié P (2013) Dynamic experiments for estimating preferences: An adaptive method of eliciting time and risk parameters. Management Sci. 59(3):613–640.Link, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Simonson I (1993) Context-dependent preferences. Management Sci. 39(10):1179–1189.Link, Google Scholar
• Vansteelandt S, Babanezhad M, Goetghebeur E (2009) Correcting instrumental variables estimators for systematic measurement error. Statist. Sinica 19:1223–1246.Google Scholar
• Vieider FM, Lefebre M, Bouchouicha R, Chmura T, Hakimov R, Krawczyk M, Martinsson P (2015) Common components of risk and uncertainty attitudes across contexts and domains: Evidence from 30 countries. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 13(1):421–452.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vischer T, Dohmen T, Falk A, Huffman D, Schupp J, Sunde U, Wagner G (2013) Validating an ultra-short survey measure of patience. Econom. Lett. 120(2):142–145.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Warren C, McGraw AP, Van Boven L (2011) Values and preferences: Defining preference construction. Wiley Interdisciplinary Rev. Cognitive Sci. 2(2):193–205.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weber E, Blais A-R, Betz N (2002) A domain-specific risk attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. J. Behav. Decision Making 15(4):263–290.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ziegelmeyer F, Ziegelmeyer M (2012) Parenting is a risky business: Parental risk attitudes in small stakes decisions on their child’s behalf. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar