Individual and Group Behaviour Toward Risk: A Short Survey

Temerario, Tiziana (2014): Individual and Group Behaviour Toward Risk: A Short Survey.

Abstract

In the real life groups, rather than individuals, take the most part of decisions. So that it is useful to study how groups take a decision in different strategic environments. This paper provides an overview of previous research about groups’ preferences over risk. I compare different experimental designs and examine their different results, focusing on how groups reach agreement in risky choices, compared with individuals.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Risk attitude; preferences; uncertainty; pairwise choice; review; groups
• 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 > 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.

Schmidt, U., “Alternatives to Expected Utility: Some Formal Theories”, in: P.J. Hammond, S. Barberá, and C. Seidl (eds.), Handbook of Utility Theory Vol. II, Kluwer, Boston, 2004.

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

Starmer, C., “Developments in Non-Expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk”, Journal of Economic Literature, 38: 332-382, 2000.

Sugden, R., “Alternatives to Expected Utility: Foundations”, in: P.J. Hammond, S. Barberá, and C. Seidl (eds.), Handbook of Utility Theory Vol. II, Kluwer, Boston, 2004.

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.