Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:56:09.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nothing to Lose: Charitable Donations as Incentives in Risk Preference Measurement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 September 2017

Jonathan Rogers
Jonathan Rogers*
Affiliation:
Instructor of Political Science at New York University Abu Dhabi. PO Box 129188, Abu Dhabi, UAE. Phone: +971 2 628 5445, e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Researchers are interested in running experiments in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), which often include financially incentivized measures of risk preferences. However, it can be that gambling is forbidden and these measures may either be illegal or result in non-random refusal of subjects to participate. If individuals derive utility from warm glow or otherwise enjoy giving, then risk preferences apply to that utility too. Even in the absence of personal stakes, if risk will be borne by others, warm glow will lead subjects to behave in a manner consistent with their preferences over risk for private consumption. I examine how paid risk elicitation mechanisms correlate with measures incentivized by charitable contributions. Results suggest that subjects behave almost identically under paid and charitable stakes. Charitable measures may provide behavioral means by which to measure risk preferences, in populations where gambling is forbidden.

Keywords

Risk preferencesother regarding behaviorexperimentsMiddle East
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Experimental Political Science , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , Spring 2017 , pp. 34 - 56
Copyright
Copyright © The Experimental Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2017 

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Barsky, Robert B., Juster, F. Thomas, Kimball, Miles S., and Shapiro, Matthew D.. 1997. “Preference Parameters and Behavioral Heterogeneity: An Experimental Approach in the Health and Retirement Study.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 112 (2): 537–579.Google Scholar
Binswanger, Hans P. 1981. “Attitudes Toward Risk: Theoretical Implications of an Experiment in Rural India.” The Economic Journal 91 (364): 867–890.Google Scholar
Blair, Graeme, Fair, C. Christine, Malhotra, Neil, and Shapiro, Jacob N.. 2013. “Poverty and Support for Militant Politics: Evidence from Pakistan.” American Journal of Political Science 57 (1): 30–48.Google Scholar
Brock, J. Michelle, Lange, Andreas, and Ozbay, Erkut. 2013. “Dictating the Risk: Experimental Evidence on Giving in Risky Environments.” American Economic Review 103 (1): 415–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruner, David M. 2011. “Multiple Switching Behaviour in Multiple Price Lists.” Applied Economic Letters 18: 417–420.Google Scholar
Chakravarty, Sujoy, Harrison, Glenn, Haruvy, Ernan, and Rutström, E. Elisabeth. 2011. “Are You Risk Averse over Other People’s Money?” Southern Economic Journal 77 (4): 901–913.Google Scholar
Charness, Gary, Gneezy, Uri, and Imas, Alex. 2013. “Experimental Methods: Eliciting Risk Preferences.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 87: 43–51.Google Scholar
Crosetto, Paolo and Filippin, Antonio. 2013. “The “Bomb” Risk Elicitation Task.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 47 (1): 31–65.Google Scholar
Crosetto, Paolo and Filippin, Antonio. 2015. “A Theoretical and Experimental Appraisal of Four Risk Elicitation Methods.” Experimental Economics 19 (3): 613–641. DOI: 10.1007/s10683-015-9457-9.Google Scholar
Croson, Rachel and Gneezy, Uri. 2009. “Gender Differences in Preferences.” Journal of Economic Literature 47 (2): 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dave, Chetan, Eckel, Catherine C., Johnson, Cathleen A., and Rojas, Christian. 2010. “Eliciting Risk Preferences: When is Simple Better?” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 41: 219–243. DOI: 10.1007/s11166-010-9103-z.Google Scholar
Eckel, Catherine and Grossman, Philip. 2008. “Forecasting risk attitudes: An experimental study using actual and forecast gamble choices.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 68: 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Exley, Christine. 2016. “Risk Taking for Oneself and Others: A Structural Model Approach.” Review of Economic Studies 83: 587–628.Google Scholar
Fearon, James and Laitin, David. 2003. “Ethnicity, Insurgency and Civil War.” American Political Science Review 97 (1): 75–90.Google Scholar
Harrison, Glenn, Lau, Morten, Rutström, E. Elisabeth, and Tarazona-Gomez, Marcela. 2012. “Preferences over Social Risk.” Oxford Economic Papers 65: 25–46.Google Scholar
Holt, Charles and Laury, Susan. 2002. “Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects.” American Economic Review 92 (5):1644–55.Google Scholar
Iannaccone, Laurence and Berman, Eli. 2006. “Religious Extremism: The good, the Bad, and the Deadly.” Public Choice 128: 109–129.Google Scholar
Lambarraa, Fatima and Riener, Gerhard. 2015. “On the Norms of Charitable Giving in Islam: Two Field Experiments in Morocco.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 118: 69–84. DOI: 10.1111/pops.12332.Google Scholar
Lejuez, C. W., Read, Jennifer P., Kahler, Christopher W., Richards, Jerry B., Ramsey, Susan E., Stuart, Gregory L., Strong, David R., and Brown, Richard A.. 2002. “Evaluation of a Behavioral Measure of Risk Taking: The Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART).” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 8 (2): 75–84.Google Scholar
MacCrimmon, Kenneth and Wehrung, Donald. 1990. “Characteristics of Risk Taking Executives.” Mangement Science 36: 422–435.Google Scholar
Mather, Mara, Mazar, Nina, Gorlick, Marissa A., Lighthall, Nichole R., Burgeno, Jessica, Schoeke, Andrej, and Ariely, Dan. 2012. “Risk Preferences and Aging: The “Certainty Effect” in Older Adults’ Decision Making.” Psychology and Aging 27 (4): 801– 816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montinari, Natalia and Rancan, Michela. 2013. “Social Preferencfes Under Risk: The Role of Social Distance.” Jena Economic Research Papers.Google Scholar
Morton, Rebecca B. and Williams, Kenneth C.. 2010. Experimental Political Science and the Study of Causality. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Morton, Rebecca and Rogers, Jonathan. 2016. Religion, Experiments, and Ethical Concerns. In Ethics and Experiments: Problems and Solutions for Social Scientists and Policy Professionals, ed. Desposato, Scott. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Null, Clair. 2011. “Warm Glow, Information, and Inefficient Charitable Giving.” Journal of Public Economics 95: 455–465.Google Scholar
Salehyan, Idean. 2008. “The Externalities of Civil Strife: Refugees as a Source of International Conflict.” American Journal of Political Science 52 (4): 787– 801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, Tomomi, Camerer, Colin F., and Nguyen, Quang. 2010. “Risk and Time Preferences: Linking Experimental and Household Survey Data from Vietname.” American Economic Review 100 (1): 557–571.Google Scholar
Vieider, Ferdinand, Villegas-Palacio, Clara, Martinsson, Peter, and Mejia, Milagros. 2016. “Risk Taking for Oneself and Others: A Structural Model Approach.” Economic Inquiry 54 (2): 879–894.Google Scholar
Wagner, Gert G., Frick, Joachim R., and Schupp, Jürgen. 2007. “The German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP): Scope, Evolution and Enhancements.” SOEP Papers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Rsearch 1, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP), DIW Berlin.Google Scholar
Weber, Elke U., Blais, Ann-Renée, and Betz, Nancy. 2002. “A Domain-Specific Risk-Attitude Scale: Measuring Risk Perceptions and Risk Behaviors.” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 15: 263–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar