Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
    • Supplementary Material
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Subscribers
    • Institutions
    • Advertisers
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
  • Connect
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • Request JHR at your library
  • Alerts
  • Call for Editor
  • Free Issue
  • Special Issue
  • Other Publications
    • UWP

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Human Resources
  • Other Publications
    • UWP
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Human Resources

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
    • Supplementary Material
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Subscribers
    • Institutions
    • Advertisers
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
  • Connect
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • Request JHR at your library
  • Alerts
  • Call for Editor
  • Free Issue
  • Special Issue
  • Follow uwp on Twitter
  • Follow JHR on Bluesky
Research ArticleArticles
Open Access

Depression, Risk Preferences, and Risk-Taking Behavior

View ORCID ProfileDeborah A. Cobb-Clark, View ORCID ProfileSarah C. Dahmann and View ORCID ProfileNathan Kettlewell
Journal of Human Resources, September 2022, 57 (5) 1566-1604; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.58.1.0419-10183R1
Deborah A. Cobb-Clark
Deborah Cobb-Clark is a Professor in the School of Economics at the University of Sydney.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Deborah A. Cobb-Clark
Sarah C. Dahmann
Sarah Dahmann is a research fellow at The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute: Applied Economic & Social Research.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Sarah C. Dahmann
Nathan Kettlewell
Nathan Kettlewell is a research fellow in the Economics Discipline Group at the University of Technology Sydney.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Nathan Kettlewell
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Additional Files
  • Figure 1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1

    Percentage Contribution of Mediators to Depression-Gap in Risk-Taking Behaviors.

    Source: Own illustration.

    Notes: SOEPv33.1i 2008-2016. Graphical illustration of Tables 9–11.

Tables

  • Figures
  • Additional Files
    • View popup
    Table 1

    Payoffs and Probabilities Associated with the SOEP 2014 Risk Experiment

    Option AOption BOption COption D
    Scenario 1

    3€, 100%

    32€, 10%

    0€, 90%

    Scenario 2

    3€, 100%

    4€, 80%

    0€, 20%

    Scenario 3

    3€, 100%

    4€, 70%

    0€, 30%

    32€, 10%

    0€, 90%

    68€, 5%

    0€, 95%

    Scenario 4

    3€, 100%

    4€, 80%

    0€, 20%

    4€, 70%

    0€, 30%

    34€, 10%

    0€, 90%

    • Notes: SOEP-IS.2016.2 2014. For each option, the cell shows the payoff and its probability (for example, for Scenario 1, Option B there is a 10 percent chance of receiving 32V and a 90 percent chance of receiving nothing).

    • View popup
    Table 2

    Depression and Behavioral Risk Preferences, Regression Results Using the 2014 SOEP Risk Experiment

    (1)(2)(3)
    Panel A: Nonparametric Logit Regressions
    Depression

    1.187

    (0.126)

    1.156

    (0.127)

    1.222*

    (0.146)

    ControlsNoYesYes
    Observations3,6403,5082,980
    Clusters910877745
    Panel B: Structural 1 Model Estimates
    Relative risk aversion (Embedded Image equation)
    Depression

    –0.095

    (0.062)

    –0.086

    (0.061)

    –0.101*

    (0.057)

    Constant

    0.182***

    (0.025)

    –0.107

    (0.137)

    –0.012

    (0.145)

    Probability weighting factor (Embedded Image equation)
    Depression

    0.093

    (0.067)

    0.091

    (0.067)

    0.111*

    (0.063)

    Constant

    0.832***

    (0.027)

    0.828***

    (0.027)

    0.730***

    (0.023)

    ControlsNoYesYes
    Obs.10,92010,5248,940
    Persons910877745
    • ↵Notes: SOEP-IS.2016.2 2014. Controls include the following: sex, age, age2, log monthly household income, own and parents’ upper secondary education or higher, household type (single person, couple without children, single parent, couple with children <16y, couple with children 16y+, couple with children <16y and 16y+, multigeneration, other combination [ref. group]), and German born. Nonparametric regressions are binary logit regressions predicting whether the option chosen involved uncertainty (that is, not Option A). Odds ratios are presented. The Embedded Image equation in the structural model is the coefficient of relative risk aversion for a CRRA utility function (see Appendix B in the Online Appendix, Equation B.1); the Embedded Image equation is the probability weighting factor in Equation B.3. Results in Column 3 exclude those who chose Option C in Scenario 4 (see Table 1). Standard errors are in parentheses and are clustered at the individual level. *p < 0.10, ***p < 0.01.

    • View popup
    Table 3

    Depression and Stated Willingness to Take Risks: General and Across Domains, Pooled OLS Results

    GeneralDrivingFinanceSport/LeisureOccupationHealthTrust
    Panel A: No Controls
    Depression

    –0.443***

    (0.019)

    –0.084***

    (0.032)

    –0.072***

    (0.027)

    –0.173***

    (0.031)

    –0.051

    (0.033)

    0.099***

    (0.030)

    –0.242***

    (0.029)

    Effect size–0.096–0.027–0.032–0.049–0.0140.033–0.071
    Panel B: With Controls
    Depression

    –0.354***

    (0.018)

    0.059*

    (0.030)

    0.078***

    (0.026)

    –0.082***

    (0.028)

    0.043

    (0.031)

    0.172***

    (0.029)

    –0.156***

    (0.028)

    Effect size–0.0770.0180.035–0.0230.0120.058–0.046
    Obs.117,02934,34435,95536,08132,25836,53536,581
    Persons37,77427,92729,10729,30826,86029,62629,661
    • ↵Notes: SOEPv33.1i 2004-2016. Controls include: sex, age, age2, log monthly household income, own and parents’ upper secondary education or higher, household type (single person, couple without children, single parent, couple with children <16y, couple with children 16y+, couple with children <6y and 16y+, multigeneration, other combination [ref. group]), German born, and year dummies. Effect sizes are calculated as Embedded Image, where Embedded Image is the estimated Depression coefficient and ŷ is the pooled sample mean for the relevant stated risk preference (the effect size is the percentage change from the mean associated with depression). All dependent variables are measured on a 0–10 scale, with higher values indicating greater risk willingness. For the general domain {T} = 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016. For the other domains {T} = 2004 and 2014. Standard errors are in parentheses and are clustered at the individual level. *p < 0.01, ***p < 0.01.

    • View popup
    Table 4

    Depression and Risk-Taking Behaviors in the Financial Domain

    Risky AssetsRisky AssetsNo Suppl. Health InsuranceNo Suppl. Health Insurance
    Depression

    –0.131***

    (0.011)

    –0.029***

    (0.011)

    0.108***

    (0.013)

    0.034**

    (0.013)

    Average partial effect

    –0.046***

    (0.004)

    –0.009***

    (0.003)

    0.029***

    (0.003)

    0.008**

    (0.003)

    ControlsNoYesNoYes
    Obs.132,597132,597114,235114,235
    Persons38,10338,10335,24435,244
    Pseudo R20.0020.1270.0010.100
    • ↵Notes: SOEPv33.1i 2002–2016. Risky assets = 1 if household owns risky assets (that is, securities other than fixed interest securities, such as shares and variable bonds). Mean = 0.314. No suppl. health insurance = 1 if not currently covered by a supplementary private health insurance policy. Mean = 0.805. Controls include: sex, age, age2, log monthly household income, own and parents’ upper secondary education or higher, household type (single person, couple without children, single parent, couple with children <16y, couple with children 16y+, couple with children <16y and 16y+, multigeneration, other combination [ref. group]), German born, and year dummies. Average partial effects are the sample mean change in the predicted probability when going from Depression = 1 to Depression = 0. Standard errors are in parentheses and are clustered at the individual level. Standard errors for average partial effects are calculated using the delta method. **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01.

    • View popup
    Table 5

    Depression and Risk-Taking Behaviors in the Health Domain

    SmokerSmokerPoor DietPoor DietSedentarySedentary
    Depression

    0.162***

    (0.012)

    0.103***

    (0.012)

    0.094***

    (0.010)

    0.105***

    (0.010)

    0.202***

    (0.024)

    0.177***

    (0.024)

    Average partial effect:
    Pr(Y = 1)

    0.058***

    (0.004)

    0.033***

    (0.004)

    –0.015***

    (0.002)

    –0.016***

    (0.001)

    0.078***

    (0.009)

    0.064***

    (0.009)

    Pr(Y = 2)

    –0.023***

    (0.002)

    –0.024***

    (0.002)

    Pr(Y = 3)

    0.026***

    (0.003)

    0.027***

    (0.003)

    Pr(Y = 4)

    0.012***

    (0.001)

    0.012***

    (0.001)

    ControlsNoYesNoYesNoYes
    Obs.118,999118,99996,17296,17215,04515,045
    Persons38,28738,28733,91533,91515,04515,045
    Pseudo R20.0030.1120.0010.0420.0040.068
    • ↵Notes: SOEPv33.1i 2002-2016. Smoker = 1 if current smoker. Mean = 0.308. Poor diet is a categorical variable (1–4 scale) indicating agreement to the statement that they follow a health-conscious diet (1 = strongly agree, 4 = not at all). The distribution from 1–4 is 0.092, 0.419, 0.429, and 0.060. Sedentary = 1 if participates in sports/exercise less than once per week. Mean = 0.581. Controls include: sex, age, age2, log monthly household income, own and parents’ upper secondary education or higher, household type (single person, couple without children, single parent, couple with children <16y, couple with children 16y+, couple with children <16y and 16y+, multigeneration, other combination [ref. group]), German born, and year dummies. Average partial effects are the sample mean change in the predicted probability when going from Depression = 1 to Depression = 0. For Poor diet, the average partial effects are the change in predicted probability for each of the four possible responses. Standard errors are in parentheses and are clustered at the individual level. Standard errors for average partial effects are calculated using the delta method. ***p < 0.01.

    • View popup
    Table 6

    Depression and Risk-Taking Behaviors in the Social Domain

    Lend BelongingsLend BelongingsLend MoneyLend Money
    Depression

    –0.041**

    (0.020)

    –0.055***

    (0.020)

    0.105***

    (0.021)

    0.099***

    (0.022)

    Average partial effect:
    Pr(Y = 1)

    0.010**

    (0.005)

    0.012***

    (0.005)

    –0.042***

    (0.008)

    –0.035***

    (0.008)

    Pr(Y = 2)

    0.006**

    (0.003)

    0.007***

    (0.003)

    0.018***

    (0.003)

    0.015***

    (0.003)

    Pr(Y = 3)

    –0.005**

    (0.003)

    –0.006***

    (0.002)

    (0.018***

    (0.004)

    0.015***

    (0.003)

    Pr(Y = 4)

    –0.008**

    (0.004)

    –0.010***

    (0.004)

    0.005***

    (0.001)

    0.004***

    (0.001)

    Pr(Y = 5)

    –0.003**

    (0.001)

    –0.004***

    (0.001)

    0.001***

    (0.000)

    0.001***

    (0.000)

    ControlsNoYesNoYes
    Obs.15,01515,01515,01115,011
    Persons15,01515,01515,01115,011
    Pseudo R20.0000.0580.0010.077
    • ↵Notes: SOEPv33.1i 2008. Lend belongings is a categorical variable (1–5 scale) indicating the frequency at which the respondent lends belongings to friends (1 = never, 5 = very often). The distribution from 1–5 is 0.167, 0.296, 0.345, 0.160, and 0.032. Lend money is a categorical variable (1–5 scale) indicating the frequency at which the respondent lends money to friends (1 = never, 5 = very often). The distribution from 1–5 is 0.538, 0.319, 0.116, 0.023, and 0.004. Controls include: sex, age, age2, log monthly household income, own and parents’ upper secondary education or higher, household type (single person, couple without children, single parent, couple with children <16y, couple with children 16y+, couple with children <16y and 16y+, multigeneration, other combination [ref. group]), and German born. Average partial effects are the sample mean predicted probability for each of the possible responses when going from Depression = 1 to Depression = 0. Robust standard errors are in parentheses. Standard errors for average partial effects are calculated using the delta method. **p< 0.05, ***p< 0.01.

    • View popup
    Table 7

    Predictions for Explaining the Depression-Gaps in Risk-Taking Behaviors

    Financial Risk-TakingHealth Risk-TakingSocial Risk-Taking
    Risky AssetsNo InsuranceSmokerPoor Diet / SedentaryLend BelongingsLend Money
    Panel A: Observed Behavior
    Depressed take … riskLessMoreMoreMoreLessMore
    Panel B: Hypothesized Behavior
    Budget constraints and discounting
    Lower income/wealthLess due to less wealth to invest and DARAa in wealthLess due to DARA in wealthLess due to cigarette costsMore due to healthier options more expensiveLess due to less capacity to lendLess due to less capacity to lend
    Lower time horizonLess due to undervaluing future return.More due to “nothing to lose”More due to “nothing to lose”Less due to undervaluing future returnsLess due to undervaluing future returns
    Lower patienceLess due to discounting future returnsMore due to discounting future costsMore due to discounting future costsLess due to discounting future rewardsLess due to discounting future rewards
    Time-inconsistent preferences
    Lower self-controlMore due to overweighing presentLess due to overweighing presentLess due to overweighing present
    Less internal locus of control
    Higher impulsivity
    Lower conscientiousness
    Cognitive limitationsLess due to avoidance of complicated tasks
    Emotions and expectations
    Lower emotional stabilityMore due to stronger emotional drive??
    Lower optimismLess due to underestimation of future return.Less due to higher perceived need for insuranceLess due to overvaluing future costsLess due to lower perceived future benefitsLess due to lower perceived future benefits
    Lower prediction accuracy????
    Lower trustLessLess
    • Notes: Panel 1 reports the observed depression-gap in risk-taking behaviors from the results presented in Tables 4, 5, and 6. Panel 2 presents our hypothesis of how each factor (mediator) in Column 1 may affect each risk-taking behavior. Mediators that are expected to close the observed depression-gap in risk-taking behavior when controlling for them in regressions are italicized, while factors that are expected to widen the gap are bold.

    • ↵aDecreasing absolute risk aversion.

    • View popup
    Table 8

    Summary Statistics of Potential Mediators

    MeansEquality of Means
    Mentally WellDepressedDifferencet-Stat.p-Value
    (1)(2)(2)–(1)
    Budget constraints and discounting
    Log permanent income0.0380.026–0.012–2.2270.026
    Patience0.064–0.165–0.229–17.1210.000
    Time-inconsistent preferences
    Internal locus of control0.155–0.332–0.488–39.7550.000
    Nonimpulsivity–0.0260.0670.092 7.0210.000
    Conscientiousness0.068–0.173–0.241–18.7490.000
    Emotions and expectations
    Emotional stability0.169–0.411–0.580–47.2650.000
    Confidence in future0.104–0.248–0.352–28.4140.000
    Prediction accuracy0.082–0.162–0.244–18.5800.000
    Trust0.098–0.158–0.255–20.0280.000
    Obs.43,42716,770
    • Notes: SOEPv33.1i 2008–2016. All measures are standardized to mean of zero and variance one. All cells are conditional on individual control variables (via linear regression) and account for clustering at the individual level. Controls include: sex, age, age2, log monthly household income, own and parents’ upper secondary education or higher, household type (single person, couple without children, single parent, couple with children <16y, couple with children 16y+, couple with children <16y and 16y+, multigeneration, other combination [ref. group]), and German born.

    • View popup
    Table 9

    Mediation Results for the Depression-Gap in Risk-Taking Behaviors in the Financial Domain

    Risky AssetsRisky AssetsNo Supp. Health InsuranceNo Supp. Health Insurance
    Depression

    –0.047**

    (0.018)

    –0.012

    (0.018)

    0.030

    (0.020)

    –0.004

    (0.020)

    Average partial effect:
    Pr(Y = 1)

    –0.014**

    (0.005)

    –0.004

    (0.005)

    0.008

    (0.006)

    –0.001

    (0.006)

    Percentage contribution to mediation:
    Budget constraints and discounting
    Log permanent income9.065.78
    Patience–7.25–13.41
    Time-inconsistent preferences
    Internal locus of control82.64118.75
    Nonimpulsivity–4.9014.59
    Conscientiousness–33.36–17.41
    Emotion and expectations
    Emotional stability–33.37–28.73
    Confidence in future32.0019.01
    Prediction accuracy4.870.44
    Trust24.0115.10
    Total73.69114.13
    ModelReducedFullReducedFull
    Obs.51,17851,17842,70742,707
    Persons15,80115,80113,58313,583
    • ↵Notes: SOEPv33.1i 2008–2016. Controls are included in each estimation. Standard errors are in parentheses and are clustered at the individual level. **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01.

    • View popup
    Table 10

    Mediation Results for the Depression-Gap in Risk-Taking Behaviors in the Health Domain

    SmokerSmokerPoor DietPoor DietSedentarySedentary
    Depression

    0.092***

    (0.019)

    0.079***

    (0.019)

    0.116***

    (0.014)

    0.058***

    (0.015)

    0.173***

    (0.027)

    0.099***

    (0.029)

    Average partial effect:
    Pr(Y = 1)

    0.028***

    (0.006)

    0.024***

    (0.006)

    –0.018***

    (0.002)

    –0.009***

    (0.002)

    0.061***

    (0.010)

    0.035***

    (0.010)

    Pr(Y = 2)

    –0.025***

    (0.003)

    –0.013***

    (0.003)

    Pr(Y = 3)

    0.032***

    (0.004)

    0.016***

    (0.004)

    Pr(Y = 4)

    0.011***

    (0.001)

    0.005***

    (0.001)

    Percentage contribution to mediation:
    Budget constraints and discounting
    Log permanent income1.381.161.55
    Patience2.467.170.60
    Time-inconsistent preferences
    Internal locus of control–1.947.4114.60
    Nonimpulsivity–9.110.052.26
    Conscientiousness–0.4926.08–2.45
    Emotion and expectations
    Emotional stability–30.18–6.620.23
    Confidence in future13.936.546.19
    Prediction accuracy17.580.567.14
    Trust20.137.5612.33
    Total13.7649.9142.45
    ModelReducedFullReducedFullReducedFull
    Obs.46,33246,33242,41842,41811,89211,892
    Persons15,77815,77814,63014,63011,89211,892
    • ↵Notes: SOEPv33.1i 2008–2016. Controls are included in each estimation. Standard errors are in parentheses and are clustered at the individual level. ***p < 0.01.

    • View popup
    Table 11

    Mediation Results for the Depression-Gap in Risk-Taking Behaviors in the Social Domain

    Lend BelongingsLend BelongingsLend MoneyLend Money
    Depression

    –0.051**

    (0.023)

    0.023

    (0.024)

    0.092***

    (0.024)

    0.145***

    (0.026)

    Average partial effect:
    Pr(Y = 1)

    0.011**

    (0.005)

    –0.005

    (0.005)

    –0.033***

    (0.009)

    –0.052***

    (0.009)

    Pr(Y = 2)

    0.007**

    (0.005)

    –0.003

    (0.003)

    0.016***

    (0.003)

    0.025***

    (0.004)

    Pr(Y = 3)

    –0.006**

    (0.003)

    0.003

    (0.003)

    0.013***

    (0.003)

    0.021***

    (0.004)

    Pr(Y = 4)

    –0.009**

    (0.004)

    0.004

    (0.004)

    0.003***

    (0.001)

    0.005***

    (0.001)

    Pr(Y = 5)

    –0.003**

    (0.001)

    0.001

    (0.002)

    0.001**

    (0.000)

    0.001***

    (0.000)

    Percentage contribution to mediation:
    Budget constraints and discounting
    Log permanent income2.95–1.02
    Patience17.64–12.47
    Time-inconsistent preferences
    Internal locus of control22.59–12.15
    Nonimpulsivity21.43–9.73
    Conscientiousness–5.0015.42
    Emotion and expectations
    Emotional stability–3.82–3.18
    Confidence in future11.84–9.62
    Prediction accuracy9.82–1.42
    Trust68.57–22.56
    Total146.02–56.71
    ModelReducedFullReducedFull
    Obs.11,87111,87111,86711,867
    Persons11,87111,87111,86711,867
    • ↵Notes: SOEPv33.1i 2008–2016. Controls are included in each estimation. Robust standard errors are presented in parentheses. **p< 0.05, ***p< 0.01.

Additional Files

  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Free alternate access to The Journal of Human Resources supplementary materials is available at https://uwpress.wisc.edu/journals/journals/jhr-supplementary.html

    • 0419-10183R1_repmat.zip
    • 0419-10183R1_supp.pdf
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Human Resources: 57 (5)
Journal of Human Resources
Vol. 57, Issue 5
1 Sep 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Human Resources.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Depression, Risk Preferences, and Risk-Taking Behavior
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Human Resources
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Human Resources web site.
Citation Tools
Depression, Risk Preferences, and Risk-Taking Behavior
Deborah A. Cobb-Clark, Sarah C. Dahmann, Nathan Kettlewell
Journal of Human Resources Sep 2022, 57 (5) 1566-1604; DOI: 10.3368/jhr.58.1.0419-10183R1

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Depression, Risk Preferences, and Risk-Taking Behavior
Deborah A. Cobb-Clark, Sarah C. Dahmann, Nathan Kettlewell
Journal of Human Resources Sep 2022, 57 (5) 1566-1604; DOI: 10.3368/jhr.58.1.0419-10183R1
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • I. Introduction
    • II. Data
    • III. Depression and Risk Preferences
    • IV. Depression and Behaviors Involving Risk
    • V. Framework for Risk-Taking Behavior and Mechanisms
    • VI. Explaining the Depression-Gap in Behaviors Involving Risk
    • VII. Conclusions
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Prescription for Disaster
  • Occupation and temperature-related mortality in Mexico
  • Employers’ Language Proficiency Requirements and Hiring of Immigrants
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • D91
  • I12
  • D14
UW Press logo

© 2026 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System

Powered by HighWire