ASSESSMENT OF WARSAW UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES – SGGW STUDENTS’ BEHAVIOURS UNDER RISK
Abstract
In this study, the authors made an attempt to verify the certainty effect and the rebound effect articulated in the 1970s by D. Kahneman and A. Tversky. The research was carried out on a sample of 500 students of economic and technical specializations at Warsaw University of Life Sciences. The authors formulated research hypotheses on how field of studies or gender influence decisions taken under risk. The outcomes were considerably similar to the results of D. Kahneman’s and A. Tversky’s research, which confirmed that the certainty effect and the rebound effect existed. One disapproved the hypothesis on gender influence and confirmed the hypothesis on the influence of the field of studies on taking decisions under risk. It was found that raising the amount of potential loss has an impact on the willingness to take risk so that the loss can be avoided.Downloads
References
Bernoulli, D. (1954). Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk. Econometrica, 22, 23-36
Baran, M., Kłos, M. (2014). Pokolenie Y - prawdy i mity w kontekście zarządzania pokoleniami [Generation Y - truths and myths in the context of generation management], Marketing i Rynek [Marketing and Market], 5, 923-929.
Brzezicka, J. (2016). Znaczenie heurystyki zakotwiczenia i dostosowania w procesie wartościotwórczym na rynku nieruchomości [The meaning of anchoring and adjustment heuristic in the value-creation process in the real estate market], Acta Scientarum Polonorum, Administratio Locorum, 15(1), 31-44.
Czapiński, J., Panek T. (2007). Diagnoza społeczna: Warunki i jakość życia Polaków [Social diagnosis: Conditions and quality of life of Poles]. Wyższa Szkoła Finansów i Zarządzania w Warszawie.
Czauderna, K. (2016). Paradoksy skłonności do ryzyka. O pewnej nieścisłości teorii perspektywy [The paradoxes of risk-taking. About some inaccuracy in the theory of perspective]. Wiadomości Statystyczne [Statistical News], (2), 25-46.
GUS (2016). Structure of wages and salaries by occupations in October 2016. Warszawa.
Jurek, M., Rybacki, R. (2014). Model homo oeconomicus i jego dostosowanie do współczesnych uwarunkowań [The homo oeconomicus model and its application in the current conditions]. Studia Ekonomiczne Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Katowicach [Economic studies of the University of Economics in Katowice], 180, 65-75.
Kahneman, D., Tversky, A. (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica 47, 2, 263-292.
Kraciuk, J. (2015). Paradygmat homo oeconomicus w aspekcie rozwoju ekonomii heterodoksyjnej [The homo oeconomicus paradigm in the aspect of heterodox economics]. Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu [Research Papers of the Wroclaw University of Economics] 401, 211-219.
Muth, J.F. (1961). Rational expectations and the theory of price movements. Econometrica, Journal of the Econometric Society 29, 3, 315-335.
Simon, H.A. A behavioural model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69.1, 99-118.
Smith, A. (2012). Badania nad naturą i przyczynami bogactwa narodów. PWN, Warszawa.
Szarzec, K. (2005). Racjonalny podmiot gospodarczy w klasycznej myśli ekonomicznej i jej współczesnych kontynuacjach [A Rational Business Entity in the Classical Economic Thought and its Contemporary Continuations]. Warszawa, PWN.
Neumann, J. von, Morgenstern, O. (2007). Theory of Games and Economic, sixtieth-anniversary edition. Princeton University Press.
Wicka, A., Świstak, J. (2017). Homo sapiens oeconomicus, Homo oeconomicus czy ubezpieczenia kupujemy w oparciu o tylko racjonalne czynniki? [Homo sapiens oeconomicus, Homo oeconomicus - do we buy insurance based only on rational factors?]. Finanse, Rynki Finansowe, Ubezpieczenia [Finance, Financial Markets, Insurance], 5(89), 2, 403-411. DOI: 10.18276/ frfu.2017.89/2-33
