Individual and group preferences over risk: does group size matter?

Morone, Andrea and Temerario, Tiziana and Nemore, Francesco (2017): Individual and group preferences over risk: does group size matter?

Abstract

In this paper we investigated group size impact on risk aversion when a majority rule is applied. Drawing on the widely used Holt and Laury’s (2002) lottery pairs, we observed a risky shift for both individual and groups regardless of their size. However, groups choices are shown to be closer to the risk-neutrality prediction. More interestingly, whereas smaller groups attitudes can be safely approximated by individual choices, larger groups reveal a statistically different risk-loving attitude. This risky shift becomes more prominent as group size increases.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Preferences; Group; Risk Attitude; Majority Rule; Laboratory.
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C9 - Design of Experiments > C91 - Laboratory, Individual Behavior; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C9 - Design of Experiments > C92 - Laboratory, Group Behavior; D - Microeconomics > D1 - Household Behavior and Family Economics

References

Ambrus, A., Greiner, B., & Pathak, P. A. (2015). How individual preferences are aggregated in groups: An experimental study. Journal of Public Economics, 129, 1-13.

Andersen, S., Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutström, E. E. (2006). Elicitation using multiple price list formats. Experimental Economics, 9(4), 383-405.

Andersen, S., Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutström, E. E. (2014). Discounting behavior: A reconsideration. European Economic Review, 71, 15-33.

Baker, R. J., Laury, S. K., & Williams, A. W. (2008). Comparing small-group and individual behavior in lottery-choice experiments. Southern Economic Journal, 367-382.

Bateman, I., & Munro, A. (2005). An experiment on risky choice amongst households. The Economic Journal, 115(502).

Brunette, M., Cabantous, L., & Couture, S. (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.

Charness, G., & Sutter, M. (2012). Groups make better self-interested decisions. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(3), 157-176.

Coller, M., & Williams, M. B. (1999). Eliciting individual discount rates. Experimental Economics, 2(2), 107-127.

Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental economics, 10(2), 171-178.

Greiner, B. (2004). The online recruitment system orsee 2.0-a guide for the organization of experiments in economics. University of Cologne, Working paper series in economics, 10(23), 63-104.

Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., Rutström, E. E., & Tarazona-Gómez, M. (2012). Preferences over social risk. Oxford Economic Papers, 65(1), 25-46.

Hey, J. D., & Orme, C. (1994). Investigating generalizations of expected utility theory using experimental data. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 1291-1326.

Holt, Charles A. and Laury, Susan K. (2002) “Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects.” American Economic Review, 92(5), pp. 1644 –55.

Masclet, D., Colombier, N., Denant-Boemont, L., & Loheac, Y. (2009). Group and individual risk preferences: A lottery-choice experiment with self-employed and salaried workers. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 70(3), 470-484.

Rockenbach, B., Sadrieh, A., & Mathauschek, B. (2007). Teams take the better risks. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 63(3), 412-422.

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

Sutter, M. (2005). Are four heads better than two? An experimental beauty-contest game with teams of different size. Economics letters, 88(1), 41-46.

Zhang, J., & Casari, M. (2012). How groups reach agreement in risky choices: an experiment. Economic Inquiry, 50(2), 502-515.