IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/soecon/v75y2008i2p367-382.html

Comparing Small‐Group and Individual Behavior in Lottery‐Choice Experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Ronald J. Baker
  • Susan K. Laury
  • Arlington W. Williams

Abstract

Lottery‐choice experiments are conducted to compare risk preferences revealed by three‐person groups versus isolated individuals. A lottery‐choice experiment consists of a menu of paired lottery choices structured so that the crossover point from a low‐risk to a high‐risk lottery can be used to infer the degree of risk aversion. The data from a between‐subjects experiment indicate that the difference in the average crossover point for groups versus individuals is not significant, but groups tend to make decisions that are more consistent with risk‐neutral preferences in the lowest and highest risk lotteries. The data from a three‐phase individual‐group‐individual sequenced experiment indicate that groups choose significantly more low‐risk lotteries than the mean choice of the individual group members. Also, making a phase 2 group decision influences the subsequent phase 3 individual decisions toward the group decision relative to the initial phase 1 (individual) decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Ronald J. Baker & Susan K. Laury & Arlington W. Williams, 2008. "Comparing Small‐Group and Individual Behavior in Lottery‐Choice Experiments," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 75(2), pages 367-382, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:soecon:v:75:y:2008:i:2:p:367-382
    DOI: 10.1002/j.2325-8012.2008.tb00909.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2325-8012.2008.tb00909.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/j.2325-8012.2008.tb00909.x?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Martin G. Kocher & Matthias Sutter, 2005. "The Decision Maker Matters: Individual Versus Group Behaviour in Experimental Beauty-Contest Games," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 115(500), pages 200-223, January.
    3. Robert S. Shupp & Arlington W. Williams, 2008. "Risk preference differentials of small groups and individuals," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(525), pages 258-283, January.
    4. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    5. David Masclet & Youenn Loheac & Laurent Denant-Boemont & Nathalie Colombier, 2004. "Group and individual risk preferences: a lottery-choice experiment," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques bla06063, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), revised Sep 2006.
    6. Isaac, R Mark & James, Duncan, 2000. "Just Who Are You Calling Risk Averse?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 177-187, March.
    7. Glenn W. Harrison & Eric Johnson & Melayne M. McInnes & E. Elisabet Rutström, 2005. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(3), pages 897-901, June.
    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. Ronald J. Baker II & Susan K. Laury & Arlington W. Williams, 2008. "Comparing Small-Group and Individual Behavior in Lottery-Choice Experiments," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 75(2), pages 367-382, October.
    2. Antoni Bosch-Domènech & Joaquim Silvestre, 2013. "Measuring risk aversion with lists: a new bias," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 75(4), pages 465-496, October.
    3. Giuseppe Attanasi & Nikolaos Georgantzís & Valentina Rotondi & Daria Vigani, 2018. "Lottery- and survey-based risk attitudes linked through a multichoice elicitation task," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(3), pages 341-372, May.
    4. Lönnqvist, Jan-Erik & Verkasalo, Markku & Walkowitz, Gari & Wichardt, Philipp C., 2015. "Measuring individual risk attitudes in the lab: Task or ask? An empirical comparison," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 254-266.
    5. Antoni Bosch-Domènech & Joaquim Silvestre, 2013. "Measuring risk aversion with lists: a new bias," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 75(4), pages 465-496, October.
    6. Sujoy Chakravarty & Glenn W. Harrison & Ernan E. Haruvy & E. Elisabet Rutström, 2011. "Are You Risk Averse over Other People's Money?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 77(4), pages 901-913, April.
    7. Jones, Luke & Cseh, Attila, 2021. "Earning responsibility increases risk taking among representative decision makers," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 317-329.
    8. Roman Sheremeta & Jingjing Zhang, 2010. "Can groups solve the problem of over-bidding in contests?," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 35(2), pages 175-197, July.
    9. Jan-Erik Lönnqvist & Markku Verkasalo & Gari Walkowitz & Philipp C. Wichardt, 2011. "Measuring Individual Risk Attitudes in the Lab: Task or Ask?: An Empirical Comparison," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 370, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    10. Galizzi, Matteo M. & Machado, Sara R. & Miniaci, Raffaele, 2016. "Temporal stability, cross-validity, and external validity of risk preferences measures: experimental evidence from a UK representative sample," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 67554, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    11. David Masclet & Youenn Loheac & Laurent Denant-Boemont & Nathalie Colombier, 2004. "Group and individual risk preferences: a lottery-choice experiment," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques bla06063, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), revised Sep 2006.
    12. Howard Kunreuther & Erwann Michel-Kerjan, 2015. "Demand for fixed-price multi-year contracts: Experimental evidence from insurance decisions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 171-194, October.
    13. Fidanoski, Filip & Johnson, Timothy, 2023. "A z-Tree implementation of the Dynamic Experiments for Estimating Preferences [DEEP] method," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 38(C).
    14. Michelson, Hope & Fairbairn, Anna & Ellison, Brenna & Maertens, Annemie & Manyong, Victor, 2021. "Misperceived quality: Fertilizer in Tanzania," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    15. Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Lazaridis, Panagiotis, 2012. "When a risky prospect is valued more than its best possible outcome," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(1), pages 1-18, January.
    16. Jacquemet, Nicolas & Rullière, Jean-Louis & Vialle, Isabelle, 2008. "Monitoring optimistic agents," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 698-714, November.
    17. Tamás Csermely & Alexander Rabas, 2016. "How to reveal people’s preferences: Comparing time consistency and predictive power of multiple price list risk elicitation methods," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 107-136, December.
    18. Cox, James C., 2010. "Some issues of methods, theories, and experimental designs," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 24-28, January.
    19. He, Haoran & Martinsson, Peter & Sutter, Matthias, 2012. "Group decision making under risk: An experiment with student couples," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 117(3), pages 691-693.
    20. Felix Holzmeister & Matthias Stefan, 2021. "The risk elicitation puzzle revisited: Across-methods (in)consistency?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(2), pages 593-616, June.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
    • D80 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - General

    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:wly:soecon:v:75:y:2008:i:2:p:367-382. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)2325-8012 .

    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.