Theory and Decision

, Volume 77, Issue 3, pp 403–422 | Cite as

Estimating individual and group preference functionals using experimental data

Article

Abstract

In this paper, the empirical performance of several preference functionals is assessed using individual and group experimental data. We investigate if there is a risky choice theory that fits group decisions better than alternative theories, and if there are significant differences between individual and group choices. Experimental findings reported in this paper provide answers to both of those questions showing that expected utility gains a “winning” position over higher-level functionals (we considered disappoint aversion and two variants of rank-dependent utility) when risky choices are undertaken by individuals as well as by small groups. However, in the group experiment, alternatives (and, most notably, disappoint aversion) improve their relative performance, a fact that hints at the existence of differences between individual and group choices. We interpreted this result as evidence that feelings-like disappointment aversion become stronger in group decision.

Keywords

Group decision Expected utility Risk and uncertainty 

JEL Classification

C91 C92 D81 D70 

Supplementary material

11238_2014_9431_MOESM1_ESM.docx (83 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (docx 82 KB)

References

  1. Allais, M. (1953). Le Comportement de l’Homme Rationnel devant le Risque, Critique des Postulates et Axiomes de l’Ecole Américaine. Econometrica, 21, 503–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andreoni, J., & Petrie, R. (2008). Beauty, gender and stereotypes: Evidence from laboratory experiments. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29(1), 73–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andreoni, J., & Sprenger, C. (2011). Uncertainty equivalents: Testing the limits of the independence axiom. NBER Working Papers 17342, National Bureau of Economic Research Inc.Google Scholar
  4. Baker, R. J., Laury, S. K., & Williams, A. W. (2008). Comparing small-group and individual behavior in lottery-choice experiments. Southern Economic Journal, 75(2), 367–382.Google Scholar
  5. Barreda, I., Gallego, A. G., Georgantzis, N., Andaluz, J., & Gil, A. (2011). An experiment on spatial competition with endogenous pricing. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 29(1), 74–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bateman, I., & Munro, A. (2005). An experiment on risky choice amongst households. Economic Journal, 115(502), 176–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blinder, A. S., & Morgan, J. (2005). Are two heads better than one? Monetary policy by committee. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 37(5), 789–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bone, J. (1998). Risk-sharing CARA individuals are collectively EU. Economics Letters, 58(3), 311–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bone, J., Hey, J. D., & Suckling, J. (1999). Are groups more (or less) consistent than individuals? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 18(1), 63–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bornstein, G., & Yaniv, I. (1998). Individual and group behavior in the ultimatum game: Are groups more “Rational” players? Experimental Economics, 1(1), 101–108.Google Scholar
  11. Bornstein, G., Kugler, T., & Ziegelmeyer, A. (2004). Individual and group decisions in the centipede game: Are groups more “Rational” players? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(5), 599–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carbone, E., & Hey, J. D. (1994). Estimation of expected utility and non-expected utility preference functionals using complete ranking data. In B. Munier & M. J. Machina (Eds.), Models and Experiments on Risk and Rationality (pp. 119–139). Boston: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carbone, E., & Hey, J. D. (1995). A comparison of the estimates of EU and non-EU preference functionals using data from pairwise choice and complete ranking experiments. Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance Theory, 20, 111–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cason, T. N., & Mui, V. (1997). A laboratory study of group polarisation in the team dictator game. Economic Journal, 107(444), 1465–1483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cooper, D. J., & Kagel, J. H. (2005). Are two heads better than one? Team versus individual play in signaling games. American Economic Review, 95(3), 477–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gul, F. (1991). A theory of disappointment aversion. Econometrica, 59, 667–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harless, D. W., & Camerer, C. F. (1994). The predictive utility of generalized expected utility theories. Econometrica, 62, 1251–1289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harrison, G. W., Morton, I. L., Rutström, E. E., & Tarazona-Gómez, M. (2012). Preferences over social risk. Oxford Economic Paper, First published online: April 25, 2012.Google Scholar
  19. Harrison, G. W., & Rutström, E. E. (2009). Expected utility theory and prospect theory: One wedding and a decent funeral. Experimental Economics, 12(2), 133–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hayne, S., & Cox, J. (2006). Barking up the right tree: Are small groups rational agents? Experimental Economics, 9, 209–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hey, J. D. (2001). Does repetition improve consistency? Experimental Economics, 4(1), 5–54.Google Scholar
  22. Hey, J. D., & Orme, C. (1994). Investigating generalizations of expected utility theory using experimental data. Econometrica, 62, 1291–1326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hey, J. D., Morone, A., & Schmidt, U. (2009). Noise and bias in eliciting preferences. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 39(3), 213–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kocher, M. G., & Sutter, M. (2005). The decision maker matters: Individual versus group behaviour in experimental beauty-contest games. Economic Journal, 115(500), 200–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Masclet, D., Colombier, N., Denant-Boemont, L., & Lohéac, Y. (2009). Group and individual risk preferences: A lottery-choice experiment with self-employed and salaried workers. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 70(3), 470–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Morone, A. (2008). Comparison of mean–variance theory and expected-utility theory through a laboratory experiment. Economics Bulletin, 3(40), 1–7.Google Scholar
  27. Orme, C. (1995). On the use of artificial regressions in certain microeconometric models. Econometric Theory, 11(02), 290–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Quiggin, J. (1982). A theory of anticipated utility. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3, 323–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rockenbach, B., Sadrieh, A., & Mathauschek, B. (2007). Teams take the better risks. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 63, 412–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schmidt, U. (2004). Alternatives to expected utility: Some formal theories. In P. J. Hammond, S. Barberá, & C. Seidl (Eds.), Handbook of Utility Theory (Vol. II). Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  31. Shupp, R., & Williams, A. W. (2008). Risk preference differentials of small groups and individuals. Economic Journal, 118(525), 258–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Sugden, R. (2004). Alternatives to expected utility: Foundations. In P. J. Hammond, S. Barberá, & C. Seidl (Eds.), Handbook of Utility Theory (Vol. II). Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  34. Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Zhang, J., & Casari, M. (2012). How groups reach agreement in risky choices: An experiment. Economic Inquiry, 50(2), 502–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Studi Aziendali e GiusprivatisticiUniversity of Bari Aldo MoroBariItaly
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsUniversity Jaume I CastellónSpain
  3. 3.Department of Law, Philosophy and Economic Studies‘Sapienza’ University of RomaRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations