Search

This paper investigates the impact of peer observation on consumption decisions of rural households in Thailand using a lab-in-the-field experiment. We find that observing groups show lower within group standard deviation. Thus, we provide evidence for conformity. Further, we find that individual's consumption choice is influenced by the group choice controlling for large number of individual, household, and village characteristics. Concerning the mechanisms, we observe that unfamiliarity of the consumption good is counteracted by peer effects. We further show that the consumption choice is influenced by how many people made the same decision previously, but not by who made that decision. November 9, 2016, Updated Version

In Germany and many other countries, financial advisors are required by law to assess their clients' risk preferences in order to help them make informed and appropriate investment decisions. Most institutions that provide financial advice-banks, for instance-carry out this assessment using just one type of risk measure. Financial advisors might ask clients to answer a question about their attitudes towards risk, for example, or to choose one option among several more or less risky alternatives. Our study finds, however, that employing only one type of risk measure may result in an inaccurate assessment of risk aversion- and if the underlying information is unreliable, the corresponding investment decision will also be flawed. Based on empirical data comprising an unusually broad set of seven different risk measures, we suggest a more robust risk assessment model that combines various methods. Since our results indicate that these multiple-item risk measures usually outperform single-item measures, we recommend combining two or even three items to obtain more reliable risk attitude profiles. A higher level of accuracy could in turn lead to better investment advice.

We use a repeated incentivized risk experiment in rural Thailand to test determinants of changes in the level of individual risk aversion over time. We find that risk aversion significantly changes between 2008 and 2013 as a result of macro- andmicro-level shocks. Strong macroeconomic recovery following the 2007/08 financial crisis makes people more risk-seeking, whereas macroeconomic normalization thereafter increases risk aversion parameters. On the micro-level, we observe that negative economic and agricultural shocks increase risk aversion. Subjective perceptions of well-being and expectations also play a role but do not drive the macro-micro determinants of changes in individual risk aversion.

[no abstract]

In vielen Ländern der Welt, Deutschland eingeschlossen, sind Finanzberater (hier Personen, die Privatanleger bei Finanzanlagen beraten) heutzutage gesetzlich verpflichtet, die Risikoeinstellung ihrer Kunden zu erfassen, um ihnen dabei zu helfen, die passendste Anlageentscheidung zu treffen. Die meisten Institutionen, die eine Finanzberatung anbieten (beispielsweise Banken), verwenden für diese Erfassung nur eine einzige Messmethode. Zum Beispiel bitten sie ihre Kunden, eine Frage zur eigenen Risikoeinstellung zu beantworten oder aus mehreren, mehr oder weniger riskanten Alternativen eine auszuwählen. Wie die vorliegende Studie zeigt, könnte jedoch der Einsatz nur einer Messmethode zu ungenauen Informationen hinsichtlich der individuellen Risikoaversion führen. Wenn aber die zugrundeliegende Information zur Risikoaversion nicht verlässlich ist, wird auch die darauf aufbauende Beratung und Anlageentscheidung fehlerhaft sein. Basierend auf einer Analyse von empirischen Daten mithilfe einer ungewöhnlich breiten Palette von sieben verschiedenen Messmethoden wird ein robusteres Modell zur Erhebung der subjektiven Risikoeinstellung vorgeschlagen, das verschiedene Erhebungsverfahren kombiniert. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass solche Multiple- Item-Messungen zur Risikoeinstellung in der Regel bessere Ergebnisse liefern als Single-Item-Messungen. Empfohlen wird daher die Kombination von zwei - oder besser noch drei - Risiko-Items, um verlässliche Risikoprofile zu ermitteln, die wiederum eine bessere Anlageberatung ermöglichen. In Germany and many other countries, financial advisors are required by law to assess their clients’ risk preferences in order to help them make informed and appropriate investment decisions. Most institutions that provide financial advice - banks, for instance - carry out this assessment using just one type of risk measure. Financial advisors might ask clients to answer a question about their attitudes towards risk, for example, or to choose one option among several more or less risky alternatives. Our study finds, however, that employing only one type of risk measure may result in an inaccurate assessment of risk aversion - and if the underlying information is unreliable, the corresponding investment decision will also be flawed. Based on empirical data comprising an unusually broad set of seven different risk measures, we suggest a more robust risk assessment model that combines various methods. Since our results indicate that these multiple-item risk measures usually outperform single-item measures, we recommend combining two or even three items to obtain more reliable risk attitude profiles. A higher level of accuracy could in turn lead to better investment advice.

This paper uses a clean experiment to investigate the impact of peer observation on the consumption decisions of rural households in Thailand. We find that those groups that observe each other show lower within group standard deviation in their decisions. At the same time, we also find that individual choice is influenced by group choice. We find that unfamiliarity with product is counteracted by peer effects. Those in a group that have higher cognitive ability are able to resist peer temptation.

We compare seven established risk elicitation methods and investigate how they explain an extensive set of risky behavior from a large household survey. We find overall positive correlation between items and low explanatory power in terms of behavior. Using an average of seven risk elicitation methods reduces measurement noise and yields more predictive power. A reduced set of risk items yields the same external validity as the average of all seven methods. Hence, our multiple-item risk measures offer a more reliable way to measure risk preferences. Our results caution against the reliability of one risk method alone due to noise.