so an alternative is to ask people how much they would pay for a safer car or kitchen cleaner. but such surveys do not always produce sensible results. our answers depend on whether we're being offered a safer ?10 household cleaner and then asked if we want the more dangerous ?5 version, or whether we're offered the ?5 brand and then asked if we'll pay ?10 for the safer product. people often answer ”no” to both questions, contradicting themselves. these inconsistencies mean that we're either irrational or lying to pollsters, and perhaps both.
economists therefore tend to prefer observing real choices. if you're willing to cross a busy street to pick up a ?20 note, the economist who put it there can infer something about your willingness to accept risk. more orthodox approaches look at career choices: if you're willing to be a lumberjack, part of that decision is to accept risk in exchange for financial reward.
being a soldier is risky; so is being a drug-dealer or