behavior towards endogenous risk in the laboratory glenn w. harrison, e. elisabet rutström &...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Behavior Towards Endogenous Risk in the Laboratory Glenn W. Harrison, E. Elisabet Rutström & Shabori Sen](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649de95503460f94ae4d81/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Behavior Towards Endogenous Risk in the Laboratory
Glenn W. Harrison, E. Elisabet Rutström& Shabori Sen
![Page 2: Behavior Towards Endogenous Risk in the Laboratory Glenn W. Harrison, E. Elisabet Rutström & Shabori Sen](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649de95503460f94ae4d81/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
What is Endogenous Risk?
Risk is “endogenous” when individual has mitigation or self-protection choices which alter the risk that they face. – Prescribed burn to reduce risk of fire– Construction of earthquake resistant buildings– Installing hurricane resistant windows
![Page 3: Behavior Towards Endogenous Risk in the Laboratory Glenn W. Harrison, E. Elisabet Rutström & Shabori Sen](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649de95503460f94ae4d81/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Why is it relevant for Environmental Policy?
Recognizing that much of the risk that people face is endogenous helps informing policy For example in Florida having hurricane
resistant windows or having a new roof reduces insurance premium. The state gives loans and grants for these changes.
![Page 4: Behavior Towards Endogenous Risk in the Laboratory Glenn W. Harrison, E. Elisabet Rutström & Shabori Sen](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649de95503460f94ae4d81/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Is behavior different when risk is endogenous?
• Do risk attitudes stay the same?
• Do risk perceptions stay the same?
• Is there “uncertainty aversion” as well as risk aversion?
![Page 5: Behavior Towards Endogenous Risk in the Laboratory Glenn W. Harrison, E. Elisabet Rutström & Shabori Sen](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649de95503460f94ae4d81/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
What do we find?
• We find no evidence of framing effect on estimated risk attitudes.
• We find a statistically significant effect from endogenous risk on estimated subjective beliefs.
![Page 6: Behavior Towards Endogenous Risk in the Laboratory Glenn W. Harrison, E. Elisabet Rutström & Shabori Sen](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649de95503460f94ae4d81/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Literature Review
• Endogenous risk: Ehrlich and Becker (1972), Garen (1988), Shogren and Crocker (1991)
• Testing Endogeneity in the Laboratory: Shogren and Crocker (1991) (1994)
• Virtual Experiment with Endogenous Risk: Fiore, Harrison, Hughes and Rutström (2009)
• Betting Mechanism & Jointly Estimating Beliefs and Risk Attitudes: Andersen, Fountain, Harrison and Rutström (2009)
![Page 7: Behavior Towards Endogenous Risk in the Laboratory Glenn W. Harrison, E. Elisabet Rutström & Shabori Sen](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649de95503460f94ae4d81/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Exogenous and Endogenous Risk in the Expected Utility Model
![Page 8: Behavior Towards Endogenous Risk in the Laboratory Glenn W. Harrison, E. Elisabet Rutström & Shabori Sen](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649de95503460f94ae4d81/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Inferred WTP instrument in VR Credit $40 & House worth $18
![Page 9: Behavior Towards Endogenous Risk in the Laboratory Glenn W. Harrison, E. Elisabet Rutström & Shabori Sen](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649de95503460f94ae4d81/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Summary of Outline of Experiment
1. Experience fire simulations2. Make Bets3. State WTP4. Make choices for Holt-Laury standard
lottery task
![Page 10: Behavior Towards Endogenous Risk in the Laboratory Glenn W. Harrison, E. Elisabet Rutström & Shabori Sen](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649de95503460f94ae4d81/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Simulations
• Simulating forest fires• Computer simulation of Ashley National
Forest in Utah using FARSITE• Virtual house in the forest• Two policy options:
– Prescribed burn– No prescribed burn
• Payoff determined by whether or not house in the forest is burned by forest fire
![Page 11: Behavior Towards Endogenous Risk in the Laboratory Glenn W. Harrison, E. Elisabet Rutström & Shabori Sen](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649de95503460f94ae4d81/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
![Page 12: Behavior Towards Endogenous Risk in the Laboratory Glenn W. Harrison, E. Elisabet Rutström & Shabori Sen](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649de95503460f94ae4d81/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
• We create 96 simulation scenarios• 2 fuel loads:
– High – no expansion of prescribed burns has taken place• The risky lottery
– Low – expansion of prescribed burns has taken place• Safe lottery
• 2 weather conditions – Hot – high temperatures and low humidity– Cool – low temperatures and high humidity
• 2 wind conditions– High speed – 5 miles per hour– Low speed – 1 mile per hour
• 2 fuel moisture levels – low and high• 2 durations until fire is extinguished either by rain or by
fire suppression – 1 day or 2 days• 3 lightning locations – central plains, north-east
mountains, south-west plains• 48 scenarios for each of the fuel loads: 2 x 2 x 2 x 3
![Page 13: Behavior Towards Endogenous Risk in the Laboratory Glenn W. Harrison, E. Elisabet Rutström & Shabori Sen](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649de95503460f94ae4d81/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Probabilities in fire simulations
![Page 14: Behavior Towards Endogenous Risk in the Laboratory Glenn W. Harrison, E. Elisabet Rutström & Shabori Sen](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649de95503460f94ae4d81/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Static Image CVM. Cabin did not burn.
![Page 15: Behavior Towards Endogenous Risk in the Laboratory Glenn W. Harrison, E. Elisabet Rutström & Shabori Sen](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649de95503460f94ae4d81/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Static Image CVM. Cabin did burn.
![Page 16: Behavior Towards Endogenous Risk in the Laboratory Glenn W. Harrison, E. Elisabet Rutström & Shabori Sen](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649de95503460f94ae4d81/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
• Show video
![Page 17: Behavior Towards Endogenous Risk in the Laboratory Glenn W. Harrison, E. Elisabet Rutström & Shabori Sen](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649de95503460f94ae4d81/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Willingness to Pay Credit = $40 House value = $18
![Page 18: Behavior Towards Endogenous Risk in the Laboratory Glenn W. Harrison, E. Elisabet Rutström & Shabori Sen](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649de95503460f94ae4d81/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
The task as a lottery choice
• Each row in WTP price list presents a choice between two lotteries:– A safer lottery (with prescribed burn) with prizes
• High $20-WTP• Low $20-$8-WTP=$12-WTP
– A riskier lottery (with no prescribed burn) with prizes• High $20• Low $20-$8=$12
• Probability of cabin burning is not given to participant
![Page 19: Behavior Towards Endogenous Risk in the Laboratory Glenn W. Harrison, E. Elisabet Rutström & Shabori Sen](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649de95503460f94ae4d81/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Betting task: Risk is exogenous
• Two betting tasks:– House burns in forest fire when fuel is high or
no prescribed burn is done– House burns in forest fire when fire is low or
prescribed burn is done.
• For each event 9 bookies offer different odds (multiple price list)
• Subject has $5 to place a bet on each of the 9 bookies
![Page 20: Behavior Towards Endogenous Risk in the Laboratory Glenn W. Harrison, E. Elisabet Rutström & Shabori Sen](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649de95503460f94ae4d81/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Betting Task $5 to bet with
![Page 21: Behavior Towards Endogenous Risk in the Laboratory Glenn W. Harrison, E. Elisabet Rutström & Shabori Sen](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649de95503460f94ae4d81/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Standard Lottery Task
![Page 22: Behavior Towards Endogenous Risk in the Laboratory Glenn W. Harrison, E. Elisabet Rutström & Shabori Sen](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649de95503460f94ae4d81/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Inferring beliefs
• Controlling for risk attitudes of each subject
• Joint Maximum Likelihood estimation of EUT choice model
• CRRA utility functionU=x(1-r)/1-r
• EU for safe and risky lotteriesEUs=ps*U(xL
s )+(1-ps)*U(xHs)
![Page 23: Behavior Towards Endogenous Risk in the Laboratory Glenn W. Harrison, E. Elisabet Rutström & Shabori Sen](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649de95503460f94ae4d81/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Estimated Subjective Probabilities assuming Homogeneity
![Page 24: Behavior Towards Endogenous Risk in the Laboratory Glenn W. Harrison, E. Elisabet Rutström & Shabori Sen](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649de95503460f94ae4d81/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Estimated Subjective Probabilities allowing for Heterogeneity
![Page 25: Behavior Towards Endogenous Risk in the Laboratory Glenn W. Harrison, E. Elisabet Rutström & Shabori Sen](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649de95503460f94ae4d81/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Conclusion
One cannot simply assume that risk attitudes and beliefs elicited in an exogenous risk setting transfers to an endogenous risk setting.
![Page 26: Behavior Towards Endogenous Risk in the Laboratory Glenn W. Harrison, E. Elisabet Rutström & Shabori Sen](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649de95503460f94ae4d81/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Why not use field/survey data?
• Estimation or identification problem
• Design Problem
![Page 27: Behavior Towards Endogenous Risk in the Laboratory Glenn W. Harrison, E. Elisabet Rutström & Shabori Sen](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649de95503460f94ae4d81/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Estimation problem • Endogeneity problem exists. OLS estimate
of this model will be biased.
• Lower risk is likely to result in lower mitigation expenditure. Lower mitigation in turn results in higher risk. This circularity makes it difficult to identify the effect of a change in exogenous risk on endogenous risk and mitigation.
![Page 28: Behavior Towards Endogenous Risk in the Laboratory Glenn W. Harrison, E. Elisabet Rutström & Shabori Sen](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649de95503460f94ae4d81/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Design problem
The survey design problem arises since it is difficult to elicit the exogenous or ‘unmitigated risk’ that people face. The natural response is the endogenous or ‘effective risk’ that people face
![Page 29: Behavior Towards Endogenous Risk in the Laboratory Glenn W. Harrison, E. Elisabet Rutström & Shabori Sen](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649de95503460f94ae4d81/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Solution: Laboratory Experiments
Problem:
Lack of contextual and naturalistic cues that affect decision making in the field
![Page 30: Behavior Towards Endogenous Risk in the Laboratory Glenn W. Harrison, E. Elisabet Rutström & Shabori Sen](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649de95503460f94ae4d81/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Virtual Experiment
• Fiore, Harrison, Hughes and Rutström (2009): A VX is an experiment set in a controlled lab-
like environment, using typical lab or field participants, that generates synthetic field cues using Virtual Reality (VR) technology.
• Provides the control of the laboratory as well as the naturalistic cues of the field
![Page 31: Behavior Towards Endogenous Risk in the Laboratory Glenn W. Harrison, E. Elisabet Rutström & Shabori Sen](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649de95503460f94ae4d81/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
• Bring some aspects of the field into the lab
• Simulate the environmental setting, or the stimuli in a naturalistic way– Visual 3D simulations
![Page 32: Behavior Towards Endogenous Risk in the Laboratory Glenn W. Harrison, E. Elisabet Rutström & Shabori Sen](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649de95503460f94ae4d81/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Testing for framing effect
• Experience 4 computer simulations of forest fire with and without prescribed burn
• Form their own “belief” about the probability of forest fire burning the house
• Two separate instruments are used to elicit their subjective belief– WTP instrument where risk is endogenous– Betting instrument where risk is exogenous
![Page 33: Behavior Towards Endogenous Risk in the Laboratory Glenn W. Harrison, E. Elisabet Rutström & Shabori Sen](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649de95503460f94ae4d81/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
WTP: Risk is endogenous
Risk is endogenous, subjects have the choice to make an upfront payment for prescribed burn to reduce the risk of the house burning in forest fire
![Page 34: Behavior Towards Endogenous Risk in the Laboratory Glenn W. Harrison, E. Elisabet Rutström & Shabori Sen](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649de95503460f94ae4d81/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Identification
• How can we identify both the perception of the risk (the subjective probability) and the risk attitude?
• EU(lottery) = p(burn)*U(burn) + • (1-p(burn))*U(not burn)• U(x) = x(1-r)/(1-r)• p and r both affect their choices• We need a separate task to identify risk attitude• Holt and Laury type lottery choice
![Page 35: Behavior Towards Endogenous Risk in the Laboratory Glenn W. Harrison, E. Elisabet Rutström & Shabori Sen](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649de95503460f94ae4d81/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Simulating the physics of the fire
• Scientific realism
• Farsite predicts fire spread
• GIS layers– Vegetation – fuel loads– Topography– Weather conditions – fuel moisture,
temperatures, wind direction and speed– Ignition points
![Page 36: Behavior Towards Endogenous Risk in the Laboratory Glenn W. Harrison, E. Elisabet Rutström & Shabori Sen](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649de95503460f94ae4d81/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Scientific realism – the use of Farsite
![Page 37: Behavior Towards Endogenous Risk in the Laboratory Glenn W. Harrison, E. Elisabet Rutström & Shabori Sen](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649de95503460f94ae4d81/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
![Page 38: Behavior Towards Endogenous Risk in the Laboratory Glenn W. Harrison, E. Elisabet Rutström & Shabori Sen](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649de95503460f94ae4d81/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
![Page 39: Behavior Towards Endogenous Risk in the Laboratory Glenn W. Harrison, E. Elisabet Rutström & Shabori Sen](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649de95503460f94ae4d81/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
What is Virtual Reality really?
• Are movies VR?
• Is a game board VR?
• Interactive– The simulation reacts to the user’s actions
• Immersive– Stimuli from the simulation dominate those
from outside
![Page 40: Behavior Towards Endogenous Risk in the Laboratory Glenn W. Harrison, E. Elisabet Rutström & Shabori Sen](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649de95503460f94ae4d81/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
![Page 41: Behavior Towards Endogenous Risk in the Laboratory Glenn W. Harrison, E. Elisabet Rutström & Shabori Sen](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649de95503460f94ae4d81/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
HMD – Head Mounted Display
![Page 42: Behavior Towards Endogenous Risk in the Laboratory Glenn W. Harrison, E. Elisabet Rutström & Shabori Sen](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649de95503460f94ae4d81/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
![Page 43: Behavior Towards Endogenous Risk in the Laboratory Glenn W. Harrison, E. Elisabet Rutström & Shabori Sen](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649de95503460f94ae4d81/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
![Page 44: Behavior Towards Endogenous Risk in the Laboratory Glenn W. Harrison, E. Elisabet Rutström & Shabori Sen](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649de95503460f94ae4d81/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Discussion of VR
• Details, realism and speed of rendering– Distant objects less detail than proximate
objects– Objects vs textures– Photo-realism vs. immersion– Control interference– Flat screen monitors, caves, curved screens,
head-mounted displays
![Page 45: Behavior Towards Endogenous Risk in the Laboratory Glenn W. Harrison, E. Elisabet Rutström & Shabori Sen](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649de95503460f94ae4d81/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Why should frame matter for perception?
![Page 46: Behavior Towards Endogenous Risk in the Laboratory Glenn W. Harrison, E. Elisabet Rutström & Shabori Sen](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649de95503460f94ae4d81/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Theory, context and individual characteristics
• Economic theory specifies no role for context or for individual characteristics – Apart from risk attitudes, risk perception
(through probability weighting) (and loss aversion)
• Experimenters are well aware of the presence of auxiliary influences on behavior not captured by theory
• Psychology provide us with some theories
![Page 47: Behavior Towards Endogenous Risk in the Laboratory Glenn W. Harrison, E. Elisabet Rutström & Shabori Sen](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062716/56649de95503460f94ae4d81/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Theories that emphasize the role of context
• Embodied cognition – cognition extends outside of the mind and includes the body and the environment– Calculators, paper and pen, memory aids– Body movement and concentration– Visual and auditory environmental cues trigger certain heuristics– Heuristics develop through the interaction of a person’s mind
and the environment• Dual Process Theory of Mind – automatic and
deliberative cognitive responses to environmental cues– Individual differences in attention implies differences in switches
between automatic and deliberative cognitive responses and therefore decision errors and biases
– Individual differences in working memory capacity (multitasking while remembering) affect differences in attention