Valuing low probability risk: Survey and experimental evidence

Jamie Brown Kruse; Mark A. Thompson

doi:10.1016/S0167-2681(02)00039-2

Valuing low probability risk: Survey and experimental evidence

Jamie Brown Kruse, Mark A. Thompson

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

22 Scopus citations

Abstract

This study uses a survey question and an economics experiment to elicit the value of a risk mitigation investment. For 93 subjects (48 males and 45 females) the responses to hypothetical questions are compared with a risk mitigation decision that has a salient outcome. We find no gender-differentiated responses to either the maximum accepted price in the economics experiment or hypothetical willingness to pay questions from the survey. In our design, the two procedures generate aggregate measures that were in close agreement, however individual decisions were seldom consistent.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	495-505
Number of pages	11
Journal	Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization
Volume	50
Issue number	4
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2681(02)00039-2
State	Published - Apr 1 2003
Externally published	Yes

Keywords

Experiment
Gender
Low probability risk
Risk mitigation
Survey

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Economics and Econometrics
Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

Access to Document

10.1016/S0167-2681(02)00039-2

Cite this

@article{9a2507181bd5487c94f20d7a8245ae12,

title = "Valuing low probability risk: Survey and experimental evidence",

abstract = "This study uses a survey question and an economics experiment to elicit the value of a risk mitigation investment. For 93 subjects (48 males and 45 females) the responses to hypothetical questions are compared with a risk mitigation decision that has a salient outcome. We find no gender-differentiated responses to either the maximum accepted price in the economics experiment or hypothetical willingness to pay questions from the survey. In our design, the two procedures generate aggregate measures that were in close agreement, however individual decisions were seldom consistent.",

keywords = "Experiment, Gender, Low probability risk, Risk mitigation, Survey",

author = "Kruse, {Jamie Brown} and Thompson, {Mark A.}",

note = "Funding Information: The authors thank Rachel Croson, Howard Kunreuther, Nathan Novemsky and seminar participants at The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania for helpful comments. We also benefited from helpful comments by David Grether. We thank Ayse Oncular, Howard Kunreuther and Paul Slovic for sharing their data with us. Financial support from NSF Grant CMS-9409869 and Texas Tech University is gratefully acknowledged. ",

year = "2003",

month = apr,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1016/S0167-2681(02)00039-2",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "50",

pages = "495--505",

journal = "Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization",

issn = "0167-2681",

publisher = "Elsevier",

number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Valuing low probability risk

T2 - Survey and experimental evidence

AU - Kruse, Jamie Brown

AU - Thompson, Mark A.

N1 - Funding Information: The authors thank Rachel Croson, Howard Kunreuther, Nathan Novemsky and seminar participants at The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania for helpful comments. We also benefited from helpful comments by David Grether. We thank Ayse Oncular, Howard Kunreuther and Paul Slovic for sharing their data with us. Financial support from NSF Grant CMS-9409869 and Texas Tech University is gratefully acknowledged.

PY - 2003/4/1

Y1 - 2003/4/1

N2 - This study uses a survey question and an economics experiment to elicit the value of a risk mitigation investment. For 93 subjects (48 males and 45 females) the responses to hypothetical questions are compared with a risk mitigation decision that has a salient outcome. We find no gender-differentiated responses to either the maximum accepted price in the economics experiment or hypothetical willingness to pay questions from the survey. In our design, the two procedures generate aggregate measures that were in close agreement, however individual decisions were seldom consistent.

AB - This study uses a survey question and an economics experiment to elicit the value of a risk mitigation investment. For 93 subjects (48 males and 45 females) the responses to hypothetical questions are compared with a risk mitigation decision that has a salient outcome. We find no gender-differentiated responses to either the maximum accepted price in the economics experiment or hypothetical willingness to pay questions from the survey. In our design, the two procedures generate aggregate measures that were in close agreement, however individual decisions were seldom consistent.

KW - Experiment

KW - Gender

KW - Low probability risk

KW - Risk mitigation

KW - Survey

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0037374888&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0037374888&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0167-2681(02)00039-2

DO - 10.1016/S0167-2681(02)00039-2

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:0037374888

SN - 0167-2681

VL - 50

SP - 495

EP - 505

JO - Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

JF - Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

IS - 4

ER -

Valuing low probability risk: Survey and experimental evidence

Abstract

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this