IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/prs/ecoprv/ecop_0249-4744_2008_num_185_4_7839.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Une étude expérimentale du degré individuel et collectif d’aversion au risque

Author

Listed:
  • David Masclet
  • Youenn Lohéac
  • Laurent Denant-Boèmont
  • Nathalie Colombier

Abstract

[eng] Our paper focuses on decision-making under risk. We compare group preferences and individual preferences over risk using a lottery-choice experiment inspired by Holt and Laury (2002). In our individual procedure, subjects made lottery choices individually. In our group procedure, groups of three subjects had to reach unanimous lottery-choice decisions through a vote. In a third procedure, called choice procedure, subjects could choose their preferred decision-making method endogenously. Our main findings are that groups are more likely to choose safe lottery than individuals. The results also indicate a positive relationship between preference for risk and willingness to decide alone. The degree of risk aversion is mainly determined by individual characteristics. [fre] L’objet de cet article est d’étudier expérimentalement les processus individuels et collectifs de décision vis-à-vis du risque. Cette étude s’inspire des travaux de Holt et Laury (2002). Les participants prennent leurs décisions seuls, puis au sein de petits groupes, et enfin ils peuvent choisir entre les prendre individuellement ou collectivement. Nos résultats montrent que les groupes ont des attitudes plus prudentes que les individus pris isolément. Par ailleurs, les participants les plus risquophiles sont ceux qui sont disposés à payer les montants les plus élevés pour pouvoir prendre leur décision seuls. Enfin, nos résultats montrent que si le degré d'aversion au risque est influencé par le contexte, il reste en grande partie déterminé par les caractéristiques individuelles.

Suggested Citation

  • David Masclet & Youenn Lohéac & Laurent Denant-Boèmont & Nathalie Colombier, 2008. "Une étude expérimentale du degré individuel et collectif d’aversion au risque," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 185(4), pages 89-101.
  • Handle: RePEc:prs:ecoprv:ecop_0249-4744_2008_num_185_4_7839
    Note: DOI:10.3406/ecop.2008.7839
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.3406/ecop.2008.7839
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.persee.fr/doc/ecop_0249-4744_2008_num_185_4_7839
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kocher, Martin & Strau[ss], Sabine & Sutter, Matthias, 2006. "Individual or team decision-making--Causes and consequences of self-selection," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 259-270, August.
    2. Hans P. Binswanger, 1980. "Attitudes Toward Risk: Experimental Measurement in Rural India," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 62(3), pages 395-407.
    3. Claude Montmarquette & Jean-Louis Rullière & Marie-Claire Villeval & Romain Zeiliger, 2004. "Redesigning Teams and Incentives in a Merger: An Experiment with Managers and Students," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(10), pages 1379-1389, October.
    4. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2005. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects: New Data without Order Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(3), pages 902-912, June.
    5. Harrison, Glenn W, 1989. "Theory and Misbehavior of First-Price Auctions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(4), pages 749-762, September.
    6. Gary Charness & Uri Gneezy, 2010. "Portfolio Choice And Risk Attitudes: An Experiment," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 48(1), pages 133-146, January.
    7. Cummings, Ronald G & Harrison, Glenn W & Rutstrom, E Elisabet, 1995. "Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive-Compatible?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(1), pages 260-266, March.
    8. Kachelmeier, Steven J & Shehata, Mohamed, 1992. "Examining Risk Preferences under High Monetary Incentives: Experimental Evidence from the People's Republic of China," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(5), pages 1120-1141, December.
    9. Bone, John & Hey, John & Suckling, John, 1999. "Are Groups More (or Less) Consistent Than Individuals?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 63-81, April.
    10. Bone, John, 1998. "Risk-sharing CARA individuals are collectively EU," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 311-317, March.
    11. Chris Starmer, 2000. "Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 332-382, June.
    12. Gary Bornstein & Ilan Yaniv, 1998. "Individual and Group Behavior in the Ultimatum Game: Are Groups More “Rational” Players?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 101-108, June.
    13. Battalio, Raymond C & Kagel, John H & Jiranyakul, Komain, 1990. "Testing between Alternative Models of Choice under Uncertainty: Some Initial Results," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 25-50, March.
    14. Mohammed Abdellaoui, 2000. "Parameter-Free Elicitation of Utility and Probability Weighting Functions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(11), pages 1497-1512, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:prs:ecoprv:ecop_0249-4744_2008_num_185_4_7839. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Equipe PERSEE). General contact details of provider: https://www.persee.fr/collection/ecop .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.