IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/judgdm/v14y2019i1p58-71_6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Anti-social motives explain increased risk aversion for others in decisions from experience

Author

Listed:
  • Olschewski, Sebastian
  • Dietsch, Marius
  • Ludvig, Elliot A.

Abstract

When deciding for others based on explicitly described odds and outcomes, people often have different risk preferences for others than for themselves. In two pre-registered experiments, we examine risk preference for others where people learn about the odds and outcomes by experiencing them through sampling. In both experiments, on average, people were more risk averse for others than for themselves, but only when the risky option had a higher expected value. Furthermore, based on a separate set of choices, we classified people as pro- or anti-social. Only those people classified as anti-social were more risk averse for others, whereas those classified as prosocial chose similarly for themselves and others. When the uncertainty was removed, however, all participants exhibited less anti-social behavior. Together, these results suggest that anti-social motives contribute to the observed limited risk taking for others and that outcome uncertainty facilitates the expression of these motives.

Suggested Citation

  • Olschewski, Sebastian & Dietsch, Marius & Ludvig, Elliot A., 2019. "Anti-social motives explain increased risk aversion for others in decisions from experience," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(1), pages 58-71, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:1:p:58-71_6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500002916/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:1:p:58-71_6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jdm .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.