Social Influences on Risk Attitudes: Applications in Economics

  • Stefan T. TrautmannEmail author
  • Ferdinand M. Vieider


Economic research on risk attitudes has traditionally focused on individual decision-making issues, without any consideration for potential social influences on preferences. This has been changing rapidly over the last years, with economists often taking inspiration from earlier psychological research in their increasing consideration of social aspects in decision-making under risk. We provide a broadly conceived overview of the recent literature, defining four different categories of social influences on economic decisions under risk: (1) the observation of other agents’ outcomes; (2) the observation of the decision maker’s outcomes by other agents; (3) the direct effect of the decision maker’s choices on other agents’ outcomes; and (4) the direct dependency of the decision maker’s outcomes on other agents’ choices. While many promising insights have been gained over the last few years, several shortcomings and inconsistencies in our current understanding of social influences on decision-making under risk are pointed out. The overview concludes with a discussion of two real-world applications – agency in financial markets and climate change – that prominently show the importance of furthering our knowledge in this area. In order to achieve such increased knowledge, a much deeper integration of currently dispersed disciplinary knowledge in the social sciences seems crucial.


Nash Equilibrium Risk Aversion Social Influence Risk Attitude Loss Aversion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Aldashev G, Kirchsteiger G, Sebald A (2010) How (not) to decide: procedural games. Discussion paper, Ecares BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  2. Andreoni J (1995) Cooperation in public goods experiments: kindness or confusion? Am Econ Rev 85:891–904Google Scholar
  3. Anscombe FJ, Aumann RJ (1963) A definition of subjective probability. Ann Math Stat 34:199–205Google Scholar
  4. Arkes HR, Dawes RM, Christensen C (1986) Factors influencing the use of a decision rule in a probabilistic task. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 37:93–110Google Scholar
  5. Asch S (1955) Opinions and social pressure. Sci Am 193:31–35Google Scholar
  6. Barber BM, Odean T (2001) The internet and the investor. J Econ Perspect 151:41–54Google Scholar
  7. Barber BM, Odean T (2002) Online investors: do the slow die first? Rev Financ Stud 15:455–487Google Scholar
  8. Barber BM, Heath C, Odean T (2003) Good reasons to sell: reason-based choice among group and individual investors in the stock market. Manage Sci 49:1636–1652Google Scholar
  9. Bartling B, Fehr E, Schmidt K (2009) Screening, competition, and job design: economic origins of good jobs. Working paper, University of MunichGoogle Scholar
  10. Bateman I, Munro A (2005) An experiment on risky choice amongst households. Econ J 115:C176–C189Google Scholar
  11. Bell DE (1982) Regret in decision making under uncertainty. Oper Res 30:961–981Google Scholar
  12. Bellemare C, Kröger S, Van Soest A (2008) Measuring inequity aversion in a heterogenous population using experimental decisions and subjective probabilities. Econometrica 76:815–839Google Scholar
  13. Bernheim DB (1994) A theory of conformity. J Polit Econ 102:841–877Google Scholar
  14. Bernoulli D (1954/1738) Exposition of a new theory on the measurement of risk. Econometrica 22:23–36Google Scholar
  15. Bohnet I, Frey BS (1999) The sound of silence in prisoner’s dilemma and dictator games. J Econ Behav Organ 38:43–57Google Scholar
  16. Bohnet I, Zeckhauser R (2004) Trust, risk and betrayal. J Econ Behav Organ 55:467–484Google Scholar
  17. Bohnet I, Greig F, Herrmann B, Zeckhauser R (2008) Betrayal aversion – evidence from Brazil, China, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States. Am Econ Rev 98:294–310Google Scholar
  18. Boles TL, Messick DM (1995) A reverse outcome bias: the influence of multiple reference points on the evaluation of outcomes and decisions. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 61:262–275Google Scholar
  19. Bolton G E, Ockenfels A (2009) Risk taking and social comparison. A comment. Am Econ Rev 100: 628–633Google Scholar
  20. Bolton GE, Zwick R (1995) Anonymity versus punishment in ultimatum bargaining. Game Econ Behav 10:95–121Google Scholar
  21. Bolton GE, Brandts J, Ockenfels A (2005) Fair procedures: evidence from games involving lotteries. Econ J 115:1054–1076Google Scholar
  22. Bond CF, Titus LJ (1983) Social facilitation: a meta-study of 241 studies. Psychol Bull 94:265–292Google Scholar
  23. Borah A (2010) Other-regarding preferences and procedural concerns. Discussion paper, University of PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  24. Bossaerts P (2009) What decision neuroscience teaches us about financial decision making. Ann Rev Financ Econ 1:383–404Google Scholar
  25. Camerer CF, Karjalainen R (1994) Ambiguity aversion and non-additive beliefs in noncooperative games: experimental evidence. In: Munier B, Machina MJ (eds) Models and experiments in risk and rationality. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 325–358Google Scholar
  26. Cappelen AW, Konow J, Sorensen EO, Tungodden B (2009) Just luck: an experimental study of risk taking and fairness. Discussion paper, Bergen University Business SchoolGoogle Scholar
  27. Chakravarty S, Harrison G, Haruvy EE, Rutström EE (2010) Are you risk averse over other people’s money? South Econ J 77:901–913Google Scholar
  28. Charness G, Jackson MO (2009) The role of responsibility in strategic risk taking. J Econ Behav Organ 69:241–247Google Scholar
  29. Cialdini RB (1993) Influence: the psychology of persuasion. William Morrow, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Conradt L, List C (2010) Group decisions in humans and animals: a survey. Philos Trans R Soc B 364:719–742Google Scholar
  31. Cooper D, Rege M (2008) Social interaction effects and choice under uncertainty: an experimental study. Discussion paper, Florida State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  32. Corazzini L, Greiner B (2007) Herding, social preferences, and (non-)conformity. Econ Lett 97:74–80Google Scholar
  33. Curley SP, Yates JF, Abrams RA (1986) Psychological sources of ambiguity avoidance. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 38:230–256Google Scholar
  34. De Palma A, Picard N, Ziegelmeyer A (2010) Individual and couple decision behavior under risk: evidence on the dynamics of power balance. Theory Decis (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  35. Delgado MR, Schotter A, Ozbay EY, Phelps EA (2008) Understanding overbidding: using the neural circuitry of reward to design economic auctions. Science 321:1849–1852Google Scholar
  36. Diamond PA (1967) Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics, and interpersonal comparisons of utility: comment. J Polit Econ 75:765–766Google Scholar
  37. Diecidue E, van de Ven J (2008) Aspiration level, probability of success and failure, and expected utility. Int Econ Rev 49:683–700Google Scholar
  38. Duflo E, Saez E (2002) Participation and investment decisions in a retirement plan: the influence of Colleagues’ choices. J Public Econ 85:121–148Google Scholar
  39. Dufwenberg M, Muren A (2006) Generosity, anonymity, gender. J Econ Behav Organ 61:42–49Google Scholar
  40. Eckel CC, Wilson RK (2004) Is trust a risky decision? J Econ Behav Organ 55:447–465Google Scholar
  41. Eichberger J, Kelsey D, Schipper BC (2008) Granny versus game theorist: ambiguity in experimental games. Theory Decis 64:333–362Google Scholar
  42. Ellsberg D (1961) Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. Q J Econ 75:643–669Google Scholar
  43. Engelmann JB, Capra M, Noussair C, Berns GS (2009) Expert financial advice neurobiologically “offloads” financial decision-making under risk. PLoS ONE 4:e4957Google Scholar
  44. Eriksen KW, Kvaloy O (2010) Myopic investment management. Rev Financ 14:521–542Google Scholar
  45. Falk A, Ichino A (2006) Clean evidence on peer effects. J Labor Econ 24:39–57Google Scholar
  46. Fox CR, Tversky A (1995) Ambiguity aversion and comparative ignorance. Q J Econ 110:585–603Google Scholar
  47. Fox CR, Weber M (2002) Ambiguity aversion, comparative ignorance, and decision context. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 88:476–498Google Scholar
  48. Frisch D, Baron J (1988) Ambiguity and rationality. J Behav Decis Mak 1:149–157Google Scholar
  49. Gneezy U, Potters J (1997) An experiment on risk taking and evaluation periods. Q J Econ 112:631–645Google Scholar
  50. Goeree JK, Yariv L (2006) Conformity in the lab. Discussion paper, CaltechGoogle Scholar
  51. Gong M, Baron J, Kunreuther H (2010) Group cooperation under uncertainty. J Risk Uncertain 39:251–270Google Scholar
  52. Haigh MS, List JA (2005) Do professional traders exhibit myopic loss aversion? Experimental analysis. J Finance 60(1):523–534Google Scholar
  53. Haisley E, Weber RA (2010) Self-serving interpretations of ambiguity in other-regarding behavior. Game Econ Behav 68:614–625Google Scholar
  54. Haisley E, Mostafa R, Loewenstein GF (2008) Subjective relative income and lottery ticket purchases. J Behav Decis Mak 21:283–295Google Scholar
  55. Hardin G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162:1243–1248Google Scholar
  56. Harsanyi JC (1955) Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics, and interpersonal comparisons of utility. J Polit Econ 63:309–321Google Scholar
  57. Heinemann F, Nagel R, Ockenfels P (2009) Measuring strategic uncertainty in coordination games. Rev Econ Stud 76:181–221Google Scholar
  58. Herstein IN, Milnor J (1953) An axiomatic approach to measurable utility. Econometrica 21:291–297Google Scholar
  59. Hoffman E, McKabe K, Smith VL (1996) Social distance and other-regarding behavior in dictator games. Am Econ Rev 86:653–660Google Scholar
  60. Huck S, Weizsäcker G (1999) Risk, complexity, and deviations from expected-value maximization: results of a lottery choice experiment. J Econ Psychol 20:699–715Google Scholar
  61. Inbar Y, Cone J, Gilovich T (2010) People’s intuitions about intuitive insight and intuitive choice. J Pers Soc Psychol 99:232–247Google Scholar
  62. Isenberg DJ (1986) Group polarization: a critical review and meta-analysis. J Pers Soc Psychol 50:1141–1151Google Scholar
  63. Kahneman D, Miller DT (1986) Norm theory: comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychol Rev 93:136–153Google Scholar
  64. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47:263–291Google Scholar
  65. Knight F (1921) Risk, uncertainty, and profit. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  66. Kocher MG, Trautmann ST (2010) Selection into auctions for risky and ambiguous prospects. Econ Inq (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  67. Konana P, Balasubramanian S (2005) The social-economic-psychological model of technology adoption and usage: an application to online investing. Decis Support Syst 39:505–524Google Scholar
  68. Kosfeld M, Heinrichs M, Zak PJ, Fischbacher U, Fehr E (2005) Oxytocin increases trust in humans. Nature 435:673–676Google Scholar
  69. Krawczyk M (2011) A model of procedural and distributive fairness. Theory Decis 70:111–128Google Scholar
  70. Krawczyk M, Le Lec F (2010) “Give me a chance!” An experiment in social decision under risk. Exp Econ 13:500–511Google Scholar
  71. Kroll Y, Davidovitz L (2003) Inequality aversion versus risk aversion. Economica 70:19–29Google Scholar
  72. Kruglanski AW, Freund T (1983) The freezing and unfreezing of lay-inferences: effects on impressional primacy, ethnic stereotyping, and numerical anchoring. J Exp Soc Psychol 19:448–468Google Scholar
  73. Latane B (1981) The psychology of social impact. Am Psychol 36:343–356Google Scholar
  74. Lefebvre M, Vieider FM (2010) Reigning in excessive risk taking by executives: experimental evidence. GATE Working Paper No. 1006, University of LyonGoogle Scholar
  75. Lerner JS, Tetlock PE (1999) Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychol Bull 125:255–275Google Scholar
  76. Linde J, Sonnemans J (2009) Social comparison and risky choices. Discussion paper, University of AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  77. Loomes G, Sugden R (1982) Regret theory: an alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty. Econ J 92:805–824Google Scholar
  78. Maboussin MJ (2010) Untangling skill and luck. How to think about outcomes – past, present, and future. Legg Mason Capital Management strategy paperGoogle Scholar
  79. Machina MJ (1989) Dynamic consistency and non-expected utility models of choice under uncertainty. J Econ Lit 27:1622–1668Google Scholar
  80. Miller PM, Fagley NS (1991) The effects of framing, problem variation, and providing rationale on choice. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 17:517–522Google Scholar
  81. Muthukrishnan AV, Wathieu L, Xu AJ (2009) Ambiguity aversion and persistent preference for established brands. Manage Sci 55:1933–1941Google Scholar
  82. Offerman T, Schotter A (2009) Imitation and luck: an experimental study on social sampling. Game Econ Behav 65:461–502Google Scholar
  83. Rabin M, Weizsäcker G (2009) Narrow bracketing and dominated choices. Am Econ Rev 99:1508–1543Google Scholar
  84. Read D, Loewenstein GF, Rabin M (1999) Choice bracketing. J Risk Uncertain 19:171–197Google Scholar
  85. Reuben E, Riedl A (2009) Public goods provision and sanctioning in privileged groups. J Confl Resolut 53:72–93Google Scholar
  86. Reynolds DB, Joseph J, Sherwood R (2009) Risky shift versus cautious shift: determining differences in risk taking between private and public management decision-making. J Bus Econ Res 7:63–78Google Scholar
  87. Rohde I, Rohde K (2009) Risk attitudes in a social context. Discussion paper, Erasmus UniversityGoogle Scholar
  88. Sacerdote B (2001) Peer effect with random assignment: results for Dartmouth roommates. Q J Econ 116:681–704Google Scholar
  89. Savage LJ (1954) The foundations of statistics. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  90. Schechter L (2007) Traditional trust measurement and the risk confound: an experiment in rural Paraguay. J Econ Behav Organ 62:272–292Google Scholar
  91. Schmidt U, Starmer C, Sugden RF (2008) Third-generation prospect theory. J Risk Uncertain 36:203–223Google Scholar
  92. Sebald A (2010) Attribution and reciprocity. Game Econ Behav 68:339–352Google Scholar
  93. Shafir E, Simonson I, Tversky A (1993) Reason-based choice. Cognition 49:11–36Google Scholar
  94. Sieck W, Yates JF (1997) Exposition effects on decision making: choice and confidence in choice. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 70:207–219Google Scholar
  95. Stoner JAF (1961) A comparison of individual and group decisions under risk. Master’s thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (unpublished)Google Scholar
  96. Sugden R (2003) Reference-dependent subjective expected utility. J Econ Theory 111:172–191Google Scholar
  97. Sunstein CR (2008) The world vs. the United States and China? The complex climate change incentives of the leading greenhouse gas emitters. UCLA Law Rev 55:1675–1700Google Scholar
  98. Sutter M (2009) Individual behavior and group membership: comment. Am Econ Rev 99:2247–2257Google Scholar
  99. Sutter M, Czermak S, Feri F (2010) Strategic sophistication of individuals and teams in experimental normal-form games. IZA discussion paper 4732Google Scholar
  100. Takemura K (1993) The effect of decision frame and decision justification on risky choice. Jpn Psychol Res 35:36–40Google Scholar
  101. Takemura K (1994) Influence of elaboration on the framing of decision. J Psychol 128:33–40Google Scholar
  102. Taylor K (1995) Testing credit and blame attributions as explanation for choices under ambiguity. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 64:128–137Google Scholar
  103. Tetlock PE, Boettger R (1994) Accountability amplifies the status quo effect when change creates victims. J Behav Decis Mak 7:1–23Google Scholar
  104. Tetlock PE, Vieider FM (2010) Ideology, agency and accountability: explaining shifting managerial preferences for alternative accountability regimes. Working paper, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  105. Trautmann ST (2009) A tractable model of process fairness under risk. J Econ Psychol 30:803–813Google Scholar
  106. Trautmann ST (2010) Individual fairness in Harsanyi’s utilitarianism: operationalizing all-inclusive utility. Theory Decis 68:405–415Google Scholar
  107. Trautmann ST, Wakker PP (2010) Process fairness and dynamic consistency. Econ Lett 109(3):187–189Google Scholar
  108. Trautmann ST, Zeckhauser R (2010) Blindness to the benefits of ambiguity: the neglect of learning opportunities. Discussion paper, Harvard UniversityGoogle Scholar
  109. Trautmann ST, Vieider FM, Wakker PP (2008) Causes of ambiguity aversion: known versus unknown preferences. J Risk Uncertain 36:225–243Google Scholar
  110. Van Huyck JB, Battalio RC, Beil RO (1990) Tacit coordination in games, strategic uncertainty, and coordination failure. Am Econ Rev 80:234–248Google Scholar
  111. Vieider FM (2009) The effect of accountability on loss aversion. Acta Psychol 132:96–101Google Scholar
  112. Vieider FM (2011) Separating real incentives and accountability. Experim Econ (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  113. Von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1947) Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  114. Wallach MA, Kogan N, Bem DJ (1964) Diffusion of responsibility and level of risk taking in groups. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 68:263–274Google Scholar
  115. Weigold MF, Schlenker BR (1991) Accountability and risk taking. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 17:25–29Google Scholar
  116. Wiseman RM, Gomez-Mejia LR (1998) A behavioral agency model of managerial risk taking. Acad Manage Rev 23(1):133–153Google Scholar
  117. Zajonc RB (1965) Social facilitation. Science 149:269–274Google Scholar
  118. Zeckhauser R (2006) Investing in the unknown and unknowable. Cap Soc 1(2):1–39Google Scholar
  119. Zizzo DJ (2004) Inequality and procedural fairness in a money-burning and stealing experiment. Res Econ Inequal 11:215–247Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tilburg Institute of Behavioral Economics Research, Department of Social Psychology & CenterTilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Institut für VolkswirtschaftslehreLudwig-Maximilians-Universität MünchenMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations