Decision process and preferences over risk under the “endogenous decision rule”: results from a group experiment
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17811/ebl.10.2.2021.107-115Abstract
Recent literature on individual vs. group decision-making, in risky contexts, has brought about divergent results, mainly depending on the institutional rules through which groups take decisions. Some studies where group decisions relied on majority rule showed no appreciable difference between individuals and groups’ preferences, others where unanimity among group members was required found collective decisions to be less risk-averse than individual ones. We elicited groups’ preferences over risk using what we defined “endogenous-decision-rule”, i.e. leaving groups free to endogenously solve the potential disagreement among their members. Our results unambiguously show that individuals are more risk seeker than groups when facing gambles with positive expected payoff difference and more risk-averse in the opposite case.
References
Baker, R. J., S. K. Laury, and A. W. Williams. (2008). Comparing Small-Group and Individual Behavior in Lottery-Choice Experiments. Southern Economic Journal, 75 (2), 367–382
Brunette, M., L. Cabantous, and S. Couture. (2015). Are individuals more risk and ambiguity averse in a group environment or alone? Results from an experimental study. Theory and Decision, 78 (3), 357-376.
Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental economics, 10 (2), 171-178.
Gastil, J. (1993). Democracy in small groups: Participation, decision making and communication, Philadelphia PA: NewSociety.
Harrison, G. W., L. Morten, E. Rutström, and M. Tarazona-Gomez. (2012). Preferences over Social Risk, Oxford Economic Papers, 65 (1), 25–46.
Holt, C. A. and S. K. Laury. (2002). Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects”, American Economic Review, 92 (5), 1644–1655.
Jacobson, S., and R. Petri. (2009). Learning from mistakes: What do inconsistent choices over risk tell us?. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 38 (2), 143-158.
Masclet, D., Y. Loheac, L. Denant-Boemont, and N. Colombier. (2009). Group and Individual Risk Preferences: a Lottery-Choice Experiment”. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 70 (3), 470–484.
Shupp, R. S. and A. W. Williams. (2008). Risk preference differentials of small groups and individuals, The Economic Journal, 118 (525), 258–283.
Zhang, J., and M. Casari. (2012). How Groups Reach Agreement In Risky Choices: An Experiment", Economic Inquiry, 50 (2), 502–515.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
The works published in this journal are subject to the following terms:
1. Oviedo University Press (the publisher) retains the property rights (copyright) of published works, and encourages and enables the reuse of the same under the license specified in paragraph 2.
© Ediuno. Ediciones de la Universidad de Oviedo / Oviedo University Press
2. The works are published in the online edition of the journal under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Non Derives 3.0 Spain (legal text). You can copy, use, distribute, transmit and publicly display, provided that: i) you cite the author and the original source of publication (journal, publisher and URL of the work), ii) they are not used for commercial purposes, iii) mentions the existence and specifications of this license.
3. Conditions of self-archiving. The author can archive the post-print version of the article (publisher’s version) on the author’s personal website and/or on the web of the institution where he belong, including a link to the page of the journal and putting the way of citation of the work. Economics and Business Letters and its URL https://reunido.uniovi.es/index.php/EBL/index are the only authorized source for correctly giving the reference of the publisher’s version in every mention of the article.
