Theory and Decision

, Volume 78, Issue 3, pp 357–376 | Cite as

Are individuals more risk and ambiguity averse in a group environment or alone? Results from an experimental study

  • Marielle Brunette
  • Laure Cabantous
  • Stéphane Couture
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Group Unanimity Majority Preferences Risk Ambiguity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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.

References

  1. Abdellaoui, M., Baillon, A., Placido, L., & Wakker, P. P. (2010). The rich domain of uncertainty: Source functions and their experimental implementation. American Economic Review, 101(2), 695–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahn, D., Choi, S., Gale, D., Kariv, S. (2009). Estimating ambiguity aversion in a portfolio choice experiment. Working Paper.Google Scholar
  3. Akay, A., Martinsson, P., Medhin, H., & Trautmann, S. T. (2012). Attitudes toward uncertainty among the poor: An experiment in rural Ethiopia. Theory and Decision, 73(3), 453–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Andersen, S., Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutström, E. E. (2006). Elicitation using multiple price list formats. Experimental Economics, 9(4), 383–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Akert, R. M. (2005). Social Psychology (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson.Google Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. Blinder, A. S., & Morgan, J. (2005). Are two heads better than one? Monetary Policy by Committee. Journal of Money Credit and Banking, 37, 798–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown, R. (1986). Social psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. Camerer, C., & Weber, M. (1992). Recent developments in modeling preferences: Uncertainty and ambiguity. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 325–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chakravarty, S., & Roy, J. (2009). Recursive expected utility and the separation of attitudes towards risk and ambiguity: An experimental study. Theory and Decision, 66(3), 199–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Charness, G., Karni, E., & Levin, D. (2012). Ambiguity attitudes: An experimental investigation. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  16. Cohen, M., Tallon, J.-M., & Vergnaud, J.-C. (2010). An experimental investigation of imprecision attitude and its relation with risk attitude and impatience. Theory and Decision, 71, 81–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Couture, S., & Reynaud, A. (2012). Stability of risk preference measures: results from a field experiment on French farmers. Theory and Decision, 73, 203–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Curley, S. P., Yates, J. F., & Abrams, R. A. (1986). Psychological sources of ambiguity avoidance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38, 230–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Deck, C., Lee, J., Reyes, J., & Rosen, C. (2012). Risk taking behavior: An experimental analysis of individuals and dyads. Southern Economic Journal, 79(2), 277–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Di Mauro, C., & Maffioletti, A. (2004). Attitudes to risk and attitudes to uncertainty: Experimental evidence. Applied Economics, 36, 357–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2008). Men, women and risk aversion: Experimental evidence. Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, 1, 1061–1073.Google Scholar
  22. Etner, J., Jeleva, M., Tallon, J.-M. (2012). Decision theory under ambiguity. Journal of Economic Surveys, 26(2), 234–270.Google Scholar
  23. Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10, 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gollier, C. (2011). Portfolio choices and asset prices: The comparative statics of ambiguity aversion. The Review of Economic Studies, 78, 1329–1344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Halevy, Y. (2007). Ellsberg revisited: An experimental study. Econometrica, 75(2), 503–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. Harrison, G. W., & Rutström, E. E. (2009). Expected utility theory and prospect theory: One wedding and a decent funeral. Experimental Economics, 12, 133–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hayashi, T., Wada, R. (2010). Choice with imprecise information: an experimental approach. Theory and Decision, 69(3), 355–373.Google Scholar
  30. Holt, C. A., & Laury, S. K. (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. American Economic Review, 92(5), 1644–1655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Holt, C. A., & Laury, S. K. (2005). Risk aversion and incentive effects: New data without order effects. American Economic Review, 95(3), 902–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Keck, S., Diecidue, E., & Budescu, D. (2012). Group decisions under ambiguity: Convergence to neutrality. Faculty and Research Working Paper INSEAD.Google Scholar
  33. Klibanoff, P., Marinacci, M., & Mukerji, S. (2005). A smooth model of decision making under ambiguity. Econometrica, 73(6), 1849–1892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kocher, M., Straub, S., & Sutter, M. (2006). Individual or team decision-making: Causes and consequences of self-selection. Games and Economic Behavior, 56, 259–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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 and Organization, 70, 470–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sheremeta, R. M., & Zhang, J. (2010). Can groups solve the problem of over-bidding in contests? Social Choice and Welfare, 35(2), 175–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shupp, R. S., & Williams, A. W. (2008). Risk preference differentials of small groups and individuals. The Economic Journal, 118, 258–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Trautmann, S. T., Vieider, F. M., & Wakker, P. P. (2008). Causes of ambiguity aversion: Known versus unknown preferences. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 36, 225–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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
  40. Treich, N. (2010). The value of a statistical life under ambiguity aversion. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 59, 15–26.Google Scholar
  41. Viscusi, W. K., Philipps, O. R., & Kroll, S. (2011). Risky investment decisions: How are individuals influenced by their groups? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 43(2), 81–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wallach, M. A., Kogan, N., & Bem, D. J. (1964). Diffusion of responsibility and level of risk taking in groups. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 68, 263–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wakker, P. P. (2010). Prospect theory: For risk and ambiguity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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

  • Marielle Brunette
    • 1
  • Laure Cabantous
    • 2
  • Stéphane Couture
    • 3
  1. 1.INRANancyFrance
  2. 2.University of WarwickCoventryUK
  3. 3.UK INRA, Castanet-TolosanFrance

Personalised recommendations