Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-dkgms Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-16T16:20:32.648Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Risk Attitudes of Children and Adults: Choices Over Small and Large Probability Gains and Losses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

William T. Harbaugh ,
Kate Krause  and
Lise Vesterlund
William T. Harbaugh*
Affiliation:
University of Oregon and N.B.E.R. Eugene, Oregon 97403-1285, USA
Kate Krause*
Affiliation:
University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131-1101, USA
Lise Vesterlund*
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA
*
email: harbaugh@oregon.uoregon.edu
email: kkrause@unm.edu
email: vester@pitt.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper we examine how risk attitudes change with age. We present participants from age 5 to 64 with choices between simple gambles and the expected value of the gambles. The gambles are over both gains and losses, and vary in the probability of the non-zero payoff. Surprisingly, we find that many participants are risk seeking when faced with high-probability prospects over gains and risk averse when faced with small-probability prospects. Over losses we find the exact opposite. Children's choices are consistent with the underweighting of low-probability events and the overweighting of high-probability ones. This tendency diminishes with age, and on average adults appear to use the objective probability when evaluating risky prospects.

Keywords

probability weightingsubjective expected utilityprospect theorychildrenrisk

JEL classification

D80: General
Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , June 2002 , pp. 53 - 84
Copyright
Copyright © 2002 Economic Science Association

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

Battalio, R.C., Kagel, J.H., and MacDonald, D.N. (1985). “Animals’ Choices Over Uncertain Outcomes: Some Initial Experimental Results.” The American Economic Review. 75, 597–613.Google Scholar
Camerer, C. (1989). “An Experimental Test of Several Generalized Utility Theories.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 2, 61–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, C. (1998). “Bounded Rationality in Individual Decision Making.” Experimental Economics. 1, 163–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, C. and Ho, Teck-Hua. (1994). “Violations of the Betweenness Axiom and Nonlinearity in Probability.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 8, 167–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, C. and Howard, K. (1989). “Decision Processes for Low Probability Events.” Policy Implications. 8(4), 565–592.Google Scholar
Eckel, D., Grossmann, P., Lutz, N., and Padmanabhan, V. (1998). “Playing it Safe: Gender Differences in Risk Aversion.” Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Edwards, W. (1955). “The Prediction of Decisions Among Bets.” Journal of Experimental Psychology. 50, 201214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holt, C.A. (1986). “Preference Reversals and the Independence Axiom.” The American Economic Review. 76, 508–515.Google Scholar
Isaac, R.M. and Duncan, J. (2000). “Just Who Are You Calling Risk Averse?” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 20, 177–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jianakopolos, N.A. and Bernasek, A. (1998). “Are Women More Risk Averse?” Economic Inquiry. XXXVI, 620–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kagel, J.H., MacDonald, D.N., and Battalio, R.C. (1990). “Tests of “Fanning Out” of Indifference Curves: Results from Animal and Human Experiments.” The American Economic Review. 80(4), 912–921.Google Scholar
Machina, M.J. (1987). “Choice Under Uncertainty: Problems Solved and Unsolved.” Journal of Economic Perspectives. 1, 121–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prelec, D. (1998). “The Probability Weighting Function.” Econometrica. 66, 497–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quiggin, J. (1982). “A Theory of Anticipated Utility.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 3(4), 323–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsey, F.P. (1931). The Foundation of Mathematics. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Reyna, V.F. and Brainerd, C.J. (1995). “Fuzzy-Trace Theory: An Interim Synthesis.” Learning and Individual Differences. 7, 1–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savage, L.J. (1954). The Foundations of Statistics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Schlottmann, A. (2001). “Children's Probability Intuitions: Understanding the Expected Value of Complex Gambles.” Child Development. 72, 103–122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schlottmann, A. and Anderson, N.H. (1994). “Children's Judgments of Expected Value.” Development Psychology. 30, 56–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoemaker, PJ. (1982). “The Expected Utility Model: It's Variants, Purposes, Evidence and Limitations.” Journal of Economic Literature. 30, 529–563.Google Scholar
Starmer, C. (2000). “Developments in Non-Expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice Under Risk.” Journal of Economic Literature. 38, 332–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A. and Fox, C.R. (1995). “Weighing Risk and Uncertainty.” Psychological Review. 102, 269–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1992). “Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 5, 297–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A., Slovic, P., and Kahneman, D. (1990). “The Causes of Preference Reversal.” The American Economic Review. 80, 204–217.Google Scholar
Wu, G. and Gonzalez, R. (1998). “Common Consequence Conditions in Decision Making Under Risk.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 16, 115–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar