Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T05:07:31.174Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Empirical Analysis of the Intertemporal Stability of Risk Preference

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Ross O. Love  and
Lindon J. Robison
Ross O. Love
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University
Lindon J. Robison
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The interval measurement approach was used to obtain risk preference measures for 23 Michigan farmers in 1979 and again in 1981. This paper analyzes how risk preferences of the individuals in this group of decisionmakers changed over a two year time period. Risk preferences were most stable near typically experienced personal income levels.

Keywords

risk preferencesinterval approachrisk attitude stability
Type
Submitted Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , July 1984 , pp. 159 - 166
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Binswanger, H. P. “Attitudes Towards Risk: Experimental Measures in Rural India.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 62(1980):395–407.Google Scholar
Dillon, J. and Scandizzo, P.. “Risk Attitudes of Subsistence Farmers in Northeast Brazil: A Sampling Approach.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 60(1978):425–435.Google Scholar
Halter, A. N. and Mason, Robert. “Utility Measurement for Those Who Need to Know.” W. J. Agr. Econ., 3(1978):99–109.Google Scholar
Hazell, Peter. “Application of Risk Preference Estimates in Firm-Household and Agricultural Sector Models.” Amer.J. Agr. Econ., 64(1982):384–390.Google Scholar
King, Robert P. and Robison, Lindon J.. “An Interval Approach to Measurement of Decisionmaker Preferences.” Amer.J. Agr. Econ., 63(1981):510–520.Google Scholar
Lin, W., Dean, G. and Moore, C.. “An Empirical Test of Utility versus Profit Maximization in Agricultural Production.” Amer.J. Agr. Econ., 56(1974):497–508.Google Scholar
Lins, David A., Gabriel, Stephen C. and Sonka, Steven T.. “An Analysis of the Risk Aversion of Farm Operators: An Asset Portfolio Approach.” W. J. Agr. Econ., 50(1968):257–277.Google Scholar
Meyer, Jack. “Choice Among Distribution.” J. Econ. Theory, 14(1977):326–336.Google Scholar
Moscardi, E. and de Janvry, A.. “Attitudes Toward Risk Among Peasants: An Econometric Approach.” Amer.J. Agr. Econ., 59(1977):710–716.Google Scholar
Officer, R. and Halter, A.. “Utility Analysis in a Practical Setting.” Amer.J. Agr. Econ., 50(1968):257–277.Google Scholar
Officer, R., Halter, A., and Dillon, J.. “Risk, Utility, and the Palatability of Extension Advice to Farmer Groups.” Aust. J. Agr. Econ., 11(1967).Google Scholar
Pederson, G. “A Representative Market Model of Farmland Bid Prices.” W. J. Agr. Econ., 7(1983):279–291.Google Scholar
Pratt, J. “Risk Aversion in the Small and in the Large.” Econometrica, 32(1964):122–136.Google Scholar
Robison, Lindon J. “An Appraisal of Expected Utility Hypothesis Tests Constructed from Responses to Hypothetical Questions and Experimental Choices.” Amer.J. Agr. Econ., 64(1982):367–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoemaker, Paul J. H. “The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidence and Limitations.” J. Econ. Literature, 20(1982):529–563.Google Scholar
Whittaker, J. K. and Winter, John R.. “Risk Preferences of Farmers: An Empirical Example, Some Questions, and Suggestions for Future Research.” Risk Analysis Agriculture, Research and Educational Developments, pp. 217–224, Dep. Agr. Econ., AE-4492, University of Illinois, June 1980.Google Scholar
Young, Douglas, Lin, William, Pope, Rulon, Robison, Lindon, and Selley, Roger. “Risk Preferences of Agricultural Producers: Their Measurement and Use.” Proceedings of 1979 Annual Meeting of Western Regional Research Project, W-149, pp. 1–28, Dep. Agr. Econ., AE-4478, University of Illinois, July 1979.Google Scholar