revealed vs perceive risk preferences

The data compares whether incentivized revealed risk preferences and perceived willingness to take financial risk choices made by subjects coincide. Eliciting perceived willingness to take financial risk (PWTFR) The PWTFR question was framed as follows: When thinking of your financial investments, how willing are you to take risks? Please use a 10-point scale, where 1 means “Not At All Willing” and 10 means “Very willing.” (Lusardi and Mitchell 2011). Highly risk averse subjects chose values closer to ‘1’ and highly risk loving or seeking chose values close to ‘10’. In the analysis the choices were reverse coded such that ‘1’ became ‘10’ vice-versa. The reverse coding is done to ensure easy comparison of PWTFR and IRRP choices. Eliciting revealed incentivized risk preferences The subjects completed four typical IRRP tasks with varying pay offs for lottery A or B (Table 1; Task 1). The pay-off for the tasks were as follows: Task 2, lottery A (R70); lottery B (R110), Task 3, lottery A (R250); lottery B (R400) and task 4, lottery A(R200); lottery B (300) (Mudzingiri 2019; Andersen et al. 2008; Holt and Laury 2002). Ten percent of the subjects were randomly selected and paid for one of their choices in one of the four tasks completed. The amount won were disbursed on the day the experiment was conducted. The study specified a constant relative risk aversion (CRRA) money utility function: U(x)=x^(1-r) (1) Where r is the risk parameter, x is the monetary payoff. If r<0 an individual is risk seeking or loving, r=0 one is risk neutral and r>0 an individual is risk averse (Holt and Laury 2002). In this study the risk parameters for choices made by subjects were not calculated. The research recorded the safe choices made by individuals all the tasks completed. There are studies that have resorted to recording of safe choices in analysing risk preferences (Bellemare and Shearer 2010; Drichoutis and Lusk 2016). The definition for the safe choices in this study is the total numbers of Lottery A choices made by an individual in all the four tasks completed. The calculated risk parameters in Andersen et al. (2008) shows that switching from lottery A to Lottery B in row 1 reveals that an individual is risk loving while switching from lottery A to lottery B in row 9 show a high degree of risk aversion (Table 1). Therefore, few safe choices (close to 1) shows that a subject is risk seeking or loving while high number of safe choices (close to 10) show high level of risk aversion among subjects. All zero safe choices of lottery A were recorded as choices for row 1. This is meant to ensure matching of observations from PWTFR and IRRP. The sum of safe choices made by subjects range across 1 to 10 inclusive. A typical IRRP MPL task is shown in Table 1.

本数据集旨在对比被试的激励型显示风险偏好（incentivized revealed risk preferences, IRRP）与感知金融风险承受意愿（perceived willingness to take financial risk, PWTFR）选择是否一致。

感知金融风险承受意愿（PWTFR）的调研问题设计如下：在考虑金融投资时，您愿意承担多大的风险？请采用10分量表进行作答，其中1代表“完全不愿承担风险”，10代表“极愿承担风险”（Lusardi与Mitchell, 2011）。风险厌恶程度较高的被试倾向选择分值接近1的选项，而风险偏好型被试则倾向选择分值接近10的选项。为便于PWTFR与IRRP选择的对比分析，本研究对原始得分进行了反向编码，即将1与10互换。

激励型显示风险偏好（IRRP）的调研包含四项典型任务，每项任务设置了不同收益的彩票选项A与选项B（见表1，任务1）。各项任务的收益设置如下：任务2中，彩票选项A收益为R70，彩票选项B收益为R110；任务3中，彩票选项A收益为R250，彩票选项B收益为R400；任务4中，彩票选项A收益为R200，彩票选项B收益为R300（Mudzingiri, 2019; Andersen et al., 2008; Holt and Laury, 2002）。本研究随机选取10%的被试，按照其在四项任务中任意一项的选择支付相应报酬，报酬于实验当日发放。

本研究采用恒定相对风险厌恶（constant relative risk aversion, CRRA）货币效用函数：U(x)=x^(1−r)（1），其中r为风险参数，x为货币收益。当r<0时，个体为风险偏好型；r=0时为风险中性；r>0时为风险厌恶型（Holt与Laury, 2002）。本研究未计算被试选择对应的风险参数，而是记录了被试在全部任务中做出的安全选择次数。

已有研究在风险偏好分析中采用记录安全选择次数的方法（Bellemare与Shearer, 2010; Drichoutis与Lusk, 2016）。本研究中安全选择的定义为：被试在全部四项任务中选择彩票选项A的总次数。

Andersen等人（2008）的研究显示，在第1行从彩票选项A切换至彩票选项B的个体为风险偏好型，而在第9行完成该切换的个体则表现出高度的风险厌恶（见表1）。因此，安全选择次数较少（接近1）的被试属于风险偏好型，而安全选择次数较多（接近10）的被试则表现出较高程度的风险厌恶。本研究将所有选择彩票选项A次数为0的情况均记录为第1行的切换选择，以确保PWTFR与IRRP的观测数据能够匹配。被试的安全选择总次数范围为1至10（含两端）。典型的IRRP多价格表（multiple price list, MPL）任务详见表1。

搜集汇总

背景与挑战

背景概述

该数据集比较了激励性揭示的风险偏好与受试者感知的财务风险承受意愿是否一致，通过问卷收集感知风险偏好（10点量表）和实验任务收集揭示风险偏好（基于四个彩票选择任务的安全选择数量）。数据用于分析个体风险态度，安全选择数量范围从1到10，对应从风险寻求到风险规避的连续谱系。