Eliciting Preferences Over Risk: An Experiment

Morone, Andrea and Temerario, Tiziana (2015): Eliciting Preferences Over Risk: An Experiment.

Abstract

Previous research has begun to investigate how small groups make decisions when facing risky choices. However, no consensus has been reached. One stream of research found that groups are more risk averse, while another one reported the contrary and some studies did not even find any significant difference. This paper is meant to provide a clear comparison between two different experimental designs from Harrison et al. (2012) and Zhang and Casari, (2012). The former tests the risk preferences of groups of three members where group’s decision is taken with the majority rule; the latter, also tests risk preferences of three-members group, but using a different lottery set and aggregation rule, i.e. unanimity. These two experiments lead to different results: Harrison et al. (2012) did not find any substantial difference between individuals’ and groups’ preferences over risk, while Zhang and Casari (2012) found that groups tend to be more prone to the risk neutrality than individuals. Additionally, we present a replication study of Harrison et al. (2012) and Zhang and Casari (2012) in order to check to what extent the lottery set and the aggregation rule (majority or unanimity) adopted to elicit preferences may affect the final group choice. It results that individual and group choices are not significantly different, regardless of the lottery set and the aggregation rule used in the experimental design.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: risk choice; decision-making under risk and uncertainty; experimental economics; group behavior
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C9 - Design of Experiments > C92 - Laboratory, Group Behavior; D - Microeconomics > D8 - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty > D81 - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

References

Ambrus A., Greiner B., Pathak P., “How individual preferences get aggregated in groups - An experimental study”, Working Paper, No. 158, Economic Research Initiatives at Duke, 2013

Baker, R. J., S. K. Laury, and A. W. Williams. “Comparing Small-Group and Individual Behavior in Lottery-Choice Experiments.” Southern Economic Journal, 75(2), 2008, 367–382.

Bateman, I. and A. Munro, “An Experiment on Risky Choice Amongst Households” Economic Journal, 115(502): 176-189, 2005

Bone, J., Hey J. D. and J. Suckling. “Are Groups More (or Less) Consistent Than Individuals?” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 18(1) 1999, 63–81.

Bone, J., Hey J. D. and J. Suckling. “A Simple Risk-Sharing Experiment”. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 28(1), 2004, 23-38.

Bornstein, G., and Yaniv, I., "Individual and Group Behavior in the Ultimatum Game: Are Groups More “Rational” Players?", Experimental Economics, 1(1): 101-108, 1998.

Bornstein, G., Kugler, T., and Ziegelmeyer, A., "Individual and Group Decisions in the Centipede Game: Are Groups More “Rational” Players?", Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(5): 599–605, 2004.

Carbone, E., and Hey J. D., “Estimation of Expected Utility and Non-Expected Utility Preference Functionals Using Complete Ranking Data”, In B. Munier and M.J. Machina (eds.), Models and Experiments on Risk and Rationality, Kluwer, Boston, 1994, 119-39.

Carbone, E., and Hey J. D., “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, 1995.

Cason, T. N., and Mui, V., "A Laboratory Study of Group Polarisation in the Team Dictator Game", Economic Journal, 107(444): 1465-83, 1997.

Charness, G., Rigotti, L. and A. Rustichini. "Individual Behavior and Group Membership." American Economic Review, 97(4), 2007, 1340–1352.

Cooper, D. J., and Kagel, J. H., "Are Two Heads Better Than One? Team versus Individual Play in Signaling Games", American Economic Review, 95(3): 477-509, 2005.

Hayne, S., and J. Cox. “Barking Up the Right Tree: Are Small Groups Rational Agents?”, Experimental Economics, 9, 2006, 209–222.

Harrison, G. W., Morton, I. L., Rutström, E. E. and M. Tarazona-Gomez. “Preferences over Social Risk”, Oxford Economic Papers, 65(1), 2012, 25–46.

Hey, J.D., and Orme, C., “Investigating Generalizations of Expected Utility Theory Using Experimental Data”, Econometrica, 62: 1291-1326, 1994.

Hey, J.D., Morone A. and U. Schmidt. “Noise and bias in eliciting preferences”. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 39, 2009, 213–235.

Holt, C. A. and S. K. Laury. “Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects”, American Economic Review, 92, 2002, 1644–1655.

Jacobson, S. and R. Petrie. “Inconsistent Choices in Lottery Experiments: Evidence from Rwanda”. Working Paper No. 3, Experimental Economics Center, Georgia State University, 2007.

Kocher, M. G., and Sutter, M., "The Decision Maker Matters: Individual Versus Group Behaviour in Experimental Beauty-Contest Games", Economic Journal, 115(500): 200-223, 2005.

Kugler T., Kausel E. and M. G. Kocher. “Are group more rational than individual? A review of interactive decision making in groups”. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 3(4), 2012, 471–482.

Masclet, D. Loheac, Y., Denant-Boemont, L. and N. Colombier. “Group and Individual Risk Preferences: a Lottery-Choice Experiment”. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 70(3), 2009, 470–484.

Morone, A., “Comparison of Mean-Variance Theory and Expected-Utility Theory Through a Laboratory Experiment”, Economics Bulletin, 3(40): 1-7, 2008.

Morone, A., “On price data elicitation: A laboratory investigation”. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 39(5), 2010, 540-545.

Morone, A. and P. Morone, “Guessing Games and People Behaviours: What Can we Learn?”, in: M. Abdellaboui and J.D. Hey (eds.), Advances in Decision Making under Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, 2008.

Morone A. and P. Morone, “Boundary and interior equilibria: what drives convergence in a ‘beauty contest’?”. Economics Bulletin, 30(3), 2010, 2097-2106.

Morone, A. and P. Morone, “Estimating Individual and Group Preference Functionals Using Experimental Data”. Theory and Decision, 2014, 1–20.

Morone, A., P. Morone, “The focal point in the Traveller’s Dilemma: An Experimental Study” MPRA Paper No. 58071, 2014b.

Morone A. and U. Schmidt, "An Experimental Investigation of Alternatives to Expected Utility Using Pricing Data," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(20), 2008, pages 1-12.

Morone, A., P. Morone, A.R. Germani, “Individual and group behavior in the traveler's dilemma: An experimental study”, Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics. Volume 49, April 2014, Pages 1–7

Morone, A., S. Sandri and T. Uske, “On the absorbability of the Guessing Game Theory - A Theoretical and Experimental Analysis”, in: A. Innocenti and P. Sbriglia (eds.), Games, Rationality and Behaviour, Palgrave, 2008.

Nagel, R., “Unraveling in Guessing Games: An Experimental Study”, American Economic Review, 85(5): 1313-1326, 1995.

Nagel, R. and F.F. Tang, “An Experimental Study on the Centipede Game in Normal Form: An Investigation on Learning”, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 42(2-3): 356-384, 1998.

Rockenbach, B., Sadrieh, A. and B. Mathauschek, B. “Teams take the better risks”. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 63, 2007, 412–22.

Shupp, R.S. and A. W. Williams. “Risk preference differentials of small groups and individuals”, The Economic Journal, 118 (525), 2008, 258–283.

Von Neumann, J. and O. Morgenstern. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1944.

Zhang, J., and M. Casari. "How Groups Reach Agreement In Risky Choices: An Experiment", Economic Inquiry, 50(2), 2012, 502–515