| Field | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Field Last Published | Before May 08, 2025 04:47 PM | After May 14, 2025 01:22 PM |
| Field Intervention (Public) | Before We use a controlled economic experiment to assess the relationship between shocks and higher-order risk attitudes. Particularly, we study if previous apparent discrepancies are generated by the impossibility of field data separating the effects of the income shocks on wealth from those with risk attitudes. To do so, we propose a between-subjects experiment in which we vary the amount of initial experimental endowments (wealth) that subjects receive and the occurrence or not of the shock. To capture these relationships from a broader set of subjects than college students, the experiment is implemented via Forthright Access, an online platform with a representative sample of the U.S. population. We exogenously isolate shocks from wealth to assess their independent effect on higher-order risk preferences. We implement an experiment with seven randomly assigned treatments between subjects, as described in Table 1. Table 1. Treatments Endowment\Shock Deterministic Shock $20 Deterministic-$20 Negative Shock-$20 (Negative shock from a 50% chance of a ($20, $60) bundle) $60 Deterministic-$60 Positive Shock-$60 (Positive shock from a 50% chance of a ($20, $60) bundle) Negative Shock-$60 (Negative shock from a 50% chance of a ($60, $100) bundle) $100 Deterministic-$100 Positive Shock-$100 (Positive shock from a 50% chance of a ($60, $100) bundle) | After We use a controlled economic experiment to assess the relationship between shocks and higher-order risk attitudes. Particularly, we study if previous apparent discrepancies are generated by the impossibility of field data separating the effects of the income shocks on wealth from those with risk attitudes. To do so, we propose a between-subjects experiment in which we vary the amount of initial experimental endowments (wealth) that subjects receive and the occurrence or non-occurrence of the shock. To capture these relationships from a broader set of subjects than college students, the experiment is implemented via Forthright Access, an online platform with a representative sample of the U.S. population. To capture whether endowment shocks affect our subjects' decision processes, we record decision times and overinvestment attempts. We exogenously isolate shocks from wealth to assess their independent effect on higher-order risk preferences. We implement an experiment with seven randomly assigned treatments between subjects, as described in Table 1. Table 1. Treatments Endowment\Shock Deterministic Shock $20 Deterministic-$20 Negative Shock-$20 (Negative shock from a 50% chance of a ($20, $60) bundle) $60 Deterministic-$60 Positive Shock-$60 (Positive shock from a 50% chance of a ($20, $60) bundle) Negative Shock-$60 (Negative shock from a 50% chance of a ($60, $100) bundle) $100 Deterministic-$100 Positive Shock-$100 (Positive shock from a 50% chance of a ($60, $100) bundle) |
| Field Secondary Outcomes (End Points) | Before Correlation between risk aversion, prudence, and temperance Time taken to complete each task The number of incorrect attempts participants make before answering comprehension questions correctly | After Correlation between risk aversion, prudence, and temperance Time taken to complete each decision (DT) Overinvestment (OI) Quiz Answers in the first Attempt (QA1) |
| Field Secondary Outcomes (Explanation) | Before Decision time might be used as a proxy for cognitive processing or emotional reactivity. As robustness checks, we will analyze whether positive or negative shocks lead to faster, more intuitive decisions or slower, more deliberate ones. The number of incorrect attempts to pass the comprehension checks serves as an indirect measure of attentiveness or understanding of the tasks. While we will include all participants in the main data analysis, we will conduct robustness checks based on the number of attempts to pass comprehension questions. We will use all participants in our sample for data analysis, but for robustness checks, we will categorize participants based on the number of attempts to correctly answer the attention/comprehension quiz to evaluate whether our results are driven by inattentive behavior or misunderstanding of the tasks. | After Decision time (DT): We will perform robustness checks either by aggregating this subject characteristic as a continuous control variable or a dummy for those who took significantly longer (shorter) decision periods. Notice that if Decision Time is significantly affected by our treatment dimension (i.e., the endowment shocks), then an analysis of decision time as an outcome variable is properly due. Decision time might be a proxy for cognitive processing or emotional reactivity. As robustness checks, we will analyze whether positive or negative shocks lead to faster, more intuitive, slower, or deliberate decisions. Finally, we will register the subject’s attempt to invest amounts above their endowment (Overinvestment). This variable, also known as DT, could also be argued to be an intrinsic characteristic of the subject. Thus, to be plausible as a control variable for our analysis, or if it could be affected by our treatment dimension (i.e., the endowment shocks), an analysis of decision time as an outcome variable is properly due. Quiz Answers in the first Attempt (QA1): We will perform robustness checks either by aggregating this subject characteristic as a control variable or by decomposing the analysis between two groups of subjects The number of incorrect attempts to pass the comprehension checks serves as an indirect measure of attentiveness or understanding of the tasks. While we will include all participants in the main data analysis, we will conduct robustness checks based on the number of attempts to pass comprehension questions. We will use all participants in our sample for data analysis, but for robustness checks, we will categorize participants based on the number of attempts to correctly answer the attention/comprehension quiz to evaluate whether our results are driven by inattentive behavior or misunderstanding of the tasks. |
| Field | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Field Document | Before |
After
Relationship between shocks and HORA .docx
MD5:
0bd0116fcbb512fc7966b67fbc058dab
SHA1:
83ffcef4b1543a3dd69ad0d197613b69e45f68de
|
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Field Document |
Value
Relationship between shocks and HORA.docx
MD5:
8c9daca96713f5784150f2f6a5d2a370
SHA1:
8b1df039ee9869ce99cdbcfe3479a6d50b348304
|