Are individuals more risk and ambiguity averse in a group environment or alone? Results from an experimental study
- 620 Downloads
Most decision-making research in economics focuses on individual decisions. Yet, we know, from psychological research in particular, that individual preferences can be sensitive to social pressures. In this paper, we study the impact of a group environment on individual preferences for risky (i.e., known probabilities) and ambiguous (i.e., unknown probabilities) prospects. In our experiment, each participant was invited to make a series of lottery-choice decisions in two different conditions. In the Alone condition, individuals made private choices, whereas in the Group condition, individuals belonged to a three-person group and group members’ choices were aggregated according to either a majority or unanimity rule. This design allows us to study the impact of a group environment on individuals’ attitude towards both risky and ambiguous prospects, while controlling for the decision rule used in the group. Our experimental results show that when individuals are in the Group condition, they tend to be less risk averse and more ambiguity averse than when they are not part of a group (Alone condition). Our experiment also suggests that the decision rule matters as it shows that these two trends tend to be stronger when the group implements a unanimity rule. Specifically, we found that individuals who belong to a group implementing a unanimity rule are significantly less risk averse than individuals who belong to a group that relies on the majority rule. We obtained a similar—but non-significant—result under ambiguity.
KeywordsGroup Unanimity Majority Preferences Risk Ambiguity
The authors would like to thank Youenn Lohéac, Julien Wolfersberger and the participants of the LAMETA seminar at Montpellier and the GAEL seminar at Grenoble.
- Ahn, D., Choi, S., Gale, D., Kariv, S. (2009). Estimating ambiguity aversion in a portfolio choice experiment. Working Paper.Google Scholar
- Ambrus, A., Greiner, B., Pathak, P. (2009). Group versus individual decision-making: Is there a shift? Institute for Advanced Study, School of Social Science Economics Working Paper 0091.Google Scholar
- Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Akert, R. M. (2005). Social Psychology (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson.Google Scholar
- Baillon, A., Bleichrodt, H. (2013). Testing ambiguity models through the measurement of probabilities for gains and losses. Working paper Erasmus School of Economics.Google Scholar
- Baker, R. J., Laury, S. K., & Williams, A. W. (2008). Comparing small-group and individual behavior in lottery-choice experiments. Southern Economic Journal, 75, 367–382.Google Scholar
- Brown, R. (1986). Social psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
- Brunette, M., Cabantous, L., Couture, S., Stenger, A. (2012). The impact of governmental assistance on insurance demand under ambiguity: A theoretical model and an experimental test. Theory and Decision. doi: 10.1007/s11238-012-9321-8.
- Camerer, C. F. (1995). Individual decision making. In John H. Kagel & Alvin E. Roth (Eds.), The handbook of experimental economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Charness, G., Karni, E., & Levin, D. (2012). Ambiguity attitudes: An experimental investigation. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
- Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2008). Men, women and risk aversion: Experimental evidence. Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, 1, 1061–1073.Google Scholar
- Etner, J., Jeleva, M., Tallon, J.-M. (2012). Decision theory under ambiguity. Journal of Economic Surveys, 26(2), 234–270.Google Scholar
- Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., Rutström, E. E., & Sullivan, M. B. (2005). Eliciting risk and time preferences using field experiments: Some methodological issues. In J. Carpenter, G. W. Harrison, & J. A. List (Eds.), Research in experimental economics (pp. 125–218). Greenwich: Jai Press.Google Scholar
- Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., Rutström, E. E., & Tarazona-Gomez, M. (2007). Preferences over social risk. Working Paper 05–06. Department of Economics, College of Business Administration, University of Central Florida.Google Scholar
- Hayashi, T., Wada, R. (2010). Choice with imprecise information: an experimental approach. Theory and Decision, 69(3), 355–373.Google Scholar
- Keck, S., Diecidue, E., & Budescu, D. (2012). Group decisions under ambiguity: Convergence to neutrality. Faculty and Research Working Paper INSEAD.Google Scholar
- Trautmann, S. T., & Vieider, F. M. (2011). Social influences on risk attitudes: Applications in economics. In S. Roeser (Ed.), Handbook of risk theory. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Treich, N. (2010). The value of a statistical life under ambiguity aversion. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 59, 15–26.Google Scholar