IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ratsoc/v21y2009i3p307-336.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Shadow of the Future, Risk Aversion, and Employee Cooperation

Author

Listed:
  • Mattijs Lambooij

    (The National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA, Bilthoven, The Netherlands, mattijs.lambooij@rivm.nl)

  • Andreas Flache

    (Department of Sociology/ICS, Faculty of Behavioral and Social Sciences, University of Groningen, Grote Rozenstraat 31, 9712 TG, Groningen, The Netherlands, a.flache@rug.nl)

  • Jacques Siegers

    (Department of Economics, Utrecht University, USE - Utrecht University, Vredenburg 138, 3511 BG, Utrecht, The Netherlands, j.j.siegers@econ.uu.nl)

Abstract

In this paper, we examine whether and how the shadow of the future and risk aversion affect employee cooperation with the employer. We distinguish, formalize and test two conflicting arguments as used in the literature, which we denote the reward argument and the relation argument. Whereas the reward argument predicts that risk aversion affects cooperation in a negative way, the relation argument predicts a positive effect of risk aversion on cooperation. We show that both arguments are consistent with the view that a longer shadow of the future increases cooperation. Hypotheses are tested against survey data obtained from two samples of Dutch employees ( N =109 and N = 213, respectively). The results suggest moderate support for the relation argument.

Suggested Citation

  • Mattijs Lambooij & Andreas Flache & Jacques Siegers, 2009. "Shadow of the Future, Risk Aversion, and Employee Cooperation," Rationality and Society, , vol. 21(3), pages 307-336, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:ratsoc:v:21:y:2009:i:3:p:307-336
    DOI: 10.1177/1043463109337088
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1043463109337088
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1043463109337088?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Donkers, Bas & Melenberg, Bertrand & Van Soest, Arthur, 2001. "Estimating Risk Attitudes Using Lotteries: A Large Sample Approach," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 165-195, March.
    2. Joop Hartog & Ada Ferrer-i-Carbonell & Nicole Jonker, 2000. "On a Simple Survey Measure of Individual Risk Aversion," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 00-074/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    3. James W. Friedman, 1971. "A Non-cooperative Equilibrium for Supergames," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 38(1), pages 1-12.
    4. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    5. George A. Akerlof, 1982. "Labor Contracts as Partial Gift Exchange," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 97(4), pages 543-569.
    6. Chris Doucouliagos, 1995. "Institutional Bias, Risk, and Workers’ Risk Aversion," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(4), pages 1097-1118, December.
    7. Chris Snijders & Werner Raub, 1998. "Revolution And Risk," Rationality and Society, , vol. 10(4), pages 405-425, November.
    8. Herzog, Henry W, Jr & Schlottmann, Alan M, 1990. "Valuing Risk in the Workplace: Market Price, Willingness to Pay, and the Optimal Provision of Safety," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 72(3), pages 463-470, August.
    9. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nikki van Gerwen & Vincent Buskens & Tanja van der Lippe, 2018. "Individual training and employees’ cooperative behavior: Evidence from a contextualized laboratory experiment," Rationality and Society, , vol. 30(4), pages 432-462, November.

    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. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    2. Gijs van de Kuilen & Peter P. Wakker, 2011. "The Midweight Method to Measure Attitudes Toward Risk and Ambiguity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(3), pages 582-598, March.
    3. Williams, Allan M. & Baláž, Vladimír, 2013. "Tourism, risk tolerance and competences: Travel organization and tourism hazards," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 209-221.
    4. Peter P. Wakker & Daniëlle R. M. Timmermans & Irma Machielse, 2007. "The Effects of Statistical Information on Risk and Ambiguity Attitudes, and on Rational Insurance Decisions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(11), pages 1770-1784, November.
    5. Irma Machielse & Danielle Timmermans & Peter Wakker, 2007. "The effects of statistical information on risk ambiguity attitudes, and on rational insurance decisions," Natural Field Experiments 00338, The Field Experiments Website.
    6. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2019. "What are axiomatizations good for?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(3), pages 339-359, May.
    7. 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.
    8. Lex Borghans & Angela Lee Duckworth & James J. Heckman & Bas ter Weel, 2008. "The Economics and Psychology of Personality Traits," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 43(4).
    9. Goytom Abraha Kahsay & Daniel Osberghaus, 2018. "Storm Damage and Risk Preferences: Panel Evidence from Germany," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 301-318, September.
    10. Ghidoni, Riccardo & Suetens, Sigrid, 2019. "Empirical Evidence on Repeated Sequential Games," Other publications TiSEM ff3a441f-e196-4e45-ba59-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    11. Marcello Basili & Stefano Dalle Mura, 2004. "Ambiguity and macroeconomics:a rationale for price stickiness," Department of Economics University of Siena 428, Department of Economics, University of Siena.
    12. Groneck, Max & Ludwig, Alexander & Zimper, Alexander, 2016. "A life-cycle model with ambiguous survival beliefs," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 137-180.
    13. Iñigo Iturbe-Ormaetxe & Giovanni Ponti & Josefa Tomás, 2016. "Myopic Loss Aversion under Ambiguity and Gender Effects," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-11, December.
    14. Junyi Chai & Zhiquan Weng & Wenbin Liu, 2021. "Behavioral Decision Making in Normative and Descriptive Views: A Critical Review of Literature," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-14, October.
    15. Mercè Roca & Robin Hogarth & A. Maule, 2006. "Ambiguity seeking as a result of the status quo bias," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 175-194, May.
    16. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Horst Zank, 2023. "Source and rank-dependent utility," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 75(4), pages 949-981, May.
    17. Basieva, Irina & Khrennikova, Polina & Pothos, Emmanuel M. & Asano, Masanari & Khrennikov, Andrei, 2018. "Quantum-like model of subjective expected utility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 150-162.
    18. H. R. N. van Erp & R. O. Linger & P. H. A. J. M. van Gelder, 2014. "Fact Sheet Research on Bayesian Decision Theory," Papers 1409.8269, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2015.
    19. Yehuda Izhakian, 2012. "Ambiguity Measurement," Working Papers 12-01, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics.
    20. Diecidue, Enrico & Wakker, Peter P., 2002. "Dutch books: avoiding strategic and dynamic complications, and a comonotonic extension," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 135-149, March.

    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:sae:ratsoc:v:21:y:2009:i:3:p:307-336. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.