IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jjrfmx/v18y2025i8p407-d1706905.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic Attitudes and Financial Decisions Among Welfare Recipients: Considerations for Workforce Policy

Author

Listed:
  • Jorge N. Zumaeta

    (Department of Finance, College of Business, Florida International University, Miami, FL 33199, USA)

Abstract

This study investigates economic decision-making behaviors among welfare recipients in Miami, Florida, by leveraging well-established experimental protocols: the Guessing Game, the Prudence Measurement Task, the Risk Aversion Task, and the Stag Hunt Game. For this purpose, our study defines financial decisions as the underlying individual preferences that serve as validated proxies for savings behavior, debt management, job-search intensity, and participation in cooperative finance. A central objective is to compare the behavior of welfare recipients to that of undergraduate students, a cohort typically used in experimental economics research. The analysis reveals significant differences between the two groups in strategic thinking and coordination, particularly across ethnic and gender lines. Non-Hispanic/Latino participants in Miami displayed significantly higher average guesses in the Guessing Game compared to their counterparts in Tucson, indicating potential discrepancies in the depth of strategic reasoning. Additionally, female participants in Tucson exhibited higher levels of coordination in the Stag Hunt Game compared to females in Miami, suggesting variance in cooperative behavior between these groups. Despite these findings, regression models demonstrate that location, gender, and ethnicity collectively account for only a small fraction of the observed variance, as evidenced by low R 2 values and substantial mean squared errors across all games. These results suggest that individual heterogeneity, rather than broad demographic variables, may be more influential in shaping economic decisions. This study underscores the complexity of generalizing findings from traditional student samples to more diverse populations, highlighting the need for further investigation into the socioeconomic factors that drive financial decision-making.

Suggested Citation

  • Jorge N. Zumaeta, 2025. "Economic Attitudes and Financial Decisions Among Welfare Recipients: Considerations for Workforce Policy," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 18(8), pages 1-20, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jjrfmx:v:18:y:2025:i:8:p:407-:d:1706905
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/18/8/407/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/18/8/407/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Frechette, Guillaume R. & Schotter, Andrew (ed.), 2015. "Handbook of Experimental Economic Methodology," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195328325.
    2. Pietro Guarnieri & Tommaso Luzzati & Stefano Marchetti, 2019. "An experiment on coordination in a modified stag hunt game," Discussion Papers 2019/246, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    3. List John A., 2007. "Field Experiments: A Bridge between Lab and Naturally Occurring Data," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 6(2), pages 1-47, April.
    4. Ihil S. Baron, 2020. "The Role of Psychological Testing As an Effort to Improve Employee Competency," GATR Journals jmmr235, Global Academy of Training and Research (GATR) Enterprise.
    5. Maoliang Ye & Jie Zheng & Plamen Nikolov & Sam Asher, 2020. "One Step at a Time: Does Gradualism Build Coordination?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 113-129, January.
    6. Sebastian Ebert & Daniel Wiesen, 2011. "Testing for Prudence and Skewness Seeking," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(7), pages 1334-1349, July.
    7. Nagel, Rosemarie, 1995. "Unraveling in Guessing Games: An Experimental Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(5), pages 1313-1326, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Kuhn, Michael A., 2013. "Experimental methods: Extra-laboratory experiments-extending the reach of experimental economics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 93-100.
    2. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List, 2016. "Field Experiments in Markets," Artefactual Field Experiments j0002, The Field Experiments Website.
    3. Bayona, Anna & Brandts, Jordi & Vives, Xavier, 2020. "Information frictions and market power: A laboratory study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 354-369.
    4. Bao, Te & Corgnet, Brice & Hanaki, Nobuyuki & Okada, Katsuhiko & Riyanto, Yohanes E. & Zhu, Jiahua, 2025. "Financial forecasting in the lab and the field: Qualified professionals vs. smart students," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    5. Nobuyuki Hanaki & Takahiro Hoshino & Kohei Kubota & Fabrice Murtin & Masao Ogaki & Fumio Ohtake & Naoko Okuyama, 2022. "Comparing data gathered in an online and a laboratory experiment using the Trustlab platform," ISER Discussion Paper 1168r, Institute of Social and Economic Research, The University of Osaka, revised Jun 2022.
    6. Bosch-Domènech, Antoni & Vriend, Nicolaas J., 2013. "On the role of non-equilibrium focal points as coordination devices," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 52-67.
    7. Olivier Coibion & Dimitris Georgarakos & Yuriy Gorodnichenko & Maarten van Rooij, 2023. "How Does Consumption Respond to News about Inflation? Field Evidence from a Randomized Control Trial," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 15(3), pages 109-152, July.
    8. Morone, A. & Morone, P. & Germani, A.R., 2014. "Individual and group behaviour in the traveler's dilemma: An experimental study," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 1-7.
    9. Antonio Cabrales & Rosemarie Nagel & Roc Armenter, 2007. "Equilibrium selection through incomplete information in coordination games: an experimental study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(3), pages 221-234, September.
    10. Breaban, Adriana & van de Kuilen, Gijs & Noussair, Charles, 2016. "Prudence, Personality, Cognitive Ability and Emotional State," Other publications TiSEM 9a01a5ab-e03d-49eb-9cd7-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    11. Bannier, Christina E., 2003. "Privacy or Publicity - Who Drives the Wheel?," CFS Working Paper Series 2003/29, Center for Financial Studies (CFS).
    12. George-Marios Angeletos & Chen Lian, 2018. "Forward Guidance without Common Knowledge," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(9), pages 2477-2512, September.
    13. Benito Arruñada & Marco Casari & Francesca Pancotto, 2012. "Are self-regarding subjects more rational?," Economics Working Papers 1306, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    14. Dertwinkel-Kalt, Markus & Köster, Mats, 2017. "Local thinking and skewness preferences," DICE Discussion Papers 248, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    15. Bose, Neha & Sgroi, Daniel, 2019. "The Role of Theory of Mind and “Small Talk” Communication in Strategic Decision-Making," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 409, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    16. R. M. Harstad & R. Selten, 2014. "Bounded-rationality models:tasks to become intellectually competitive," Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP Voprosy Ekonomiki, issue 5.
    17. Emmanuel Dechenaux & Dan Kovenock & Roman Sheremeta, 2015. "A survey of experimental research on contests, all-pay auctions and tournaments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(4), pages 609-669, December.
    18. Lovric, M. & Kaymak, U. & Spronk, J., 2008. "A Conceptual Model of Investor Behavior," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2008-030-F&A, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    19. Hitoshi Matsushima, 2017. "Framing Game Theory," CARF F-Series CARF-F-425, Center for Advanced Research in Finance, Faculty of Economics, The University of Tokyo.
    20. Sergeyev, Dmitriy & Iovino, Luigi, 2018. "Central Bank Balance Sheet Policies Without Rational Expectations," CEPR Discussion Papers 13100, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:gam:jjrfmx:v:18:y:2025:i:8:p:407-:d:1706905. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.