# Individual vs. group decision-making: an experiment on dynamic choice under risk and ambiguity

- 215 Downloads

## Abstract

This paper focuses on the comparison of individual and group decision-making, in a stochastic inter-temporal problem in two decision environments, namely risk and ambiguity. Using a consumption/saving laboratory experiment, we investigate behaviour in four treatments: (1) individual choice under risk; (2) group choice under risk; (3) individual choice under ambiguity and (4) group choice under ambiguity. Comparing decisions within and between decision environments, we find an anti-symmetric pattern. While individuals are choosing on average closer to the theoretical optimal predictions, compared to groups in the risk treatments, groups tend to deviate less under ambiguity. Within decision environments, individuals deviate more when they choose under ambiguity, while groups are better planners under ambiguity rather than under risk. Our results extend the often observed pattern of individuals (groups) behaving more optimally under risk (ambiguity), to its dynamic dimension.

## Keywords

Risk Ambiguity Inter-temporal optimisation Group decision-making Learning Experiment## Notes

## Supplementary material

## References

- Ahn, D., Choi, S., Gale, D., & Kariv, S. (2014). Estimating ambiguity aversion in a portfolio choice experiment.
*Quantitative Economics*,*5*(2), 195–223.Google Scholar - Attanasi, G., Gollier, C., Montesano, A., & Pace, N. (2014). Eliciting ambiguity aversion in unknown and in compound lotteries: A smooth ambiguity model experimental study.
*Theory and Decision*,*77*, 485–530.Google Scholar - Baillon, A., Bleichrodt, H., Keskin, U., L’Haridon, O., & Li, C. (2018). Learning under ambiguity: An experiment using initial public offerings on a stock market.
*Management Science*,*64*(5), 2181–2198.Google Scholar - Baillon, A., Bleichrodt, H., Liu, N., & Wakker, P. (2016). Group decision rules and group rationality under risk.
*Journal of Risk and Uncertainty*,*52*(2), 99–116.Google Scholar - Baker, R., Laury, S., & Williams, A. (2008). Comparing small-group and individual behavior in lottery-choice experiments.
*Southern Economic Journal*,*75*(2), 367–382.Google Scholar - Ballinger, T., Hudson, E., Karkoviata, L., & Wilcox, N. (2011). Saving behavior and cognitive abilities.
*Experimental Economics*,*14*(3), 349–374.Google Scholar - Ballinger, T. P., Palumbo, M. G., & Wilcox, N. T. (2003). Precautionary saving and social learning across generations: An experiment.
*The Economic Journal*,*113*(490), 920–947.Google Scholar - Berg, J., Daley, L., Dichaut, J., & O’Brien, J. (1986). Controlling preferences for lotteries on units of experimental exchange.
*Quarterly Journal of Economics*,*101*(2), 281–306.Google Scholar - Bougheas, S., Nieboer, J., & Sefton, M. (2013). Risk-taking in social settings: Group and peer effects.
*Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization*,*92*, 273–283.Google Scholar - Brown, A. L., Chua, Z. E., & Camerer, C. F. (2009). Learning and visceral temptation in dynamic saving experiments.
*Quarterly Journal of Economics*,*124*(1), 197–231.Google Scholar - Brunette, M., Cabantous, L., & Couture, S. (2015). Are individuals more risk and ambiguity averse in a group environment or alone? Results from an experimental study.
*Theory and Decision*,*78*(3), 357–376.Google Scholar - Caballero, R. (1990). Consumption puzzles and precautionary savings.
*Journal of Monetary Economics*,*25*, 113–136.Google Scholar - Camerer, C., & Weber, M. (1992). Recent developments in modeling preferences: Uncertainty and ambiguity.
*Journal of Risk and Uncertainty*,*5*(4), 325–370.Google Scholar - Campanale, C. (2011). Learning, ambiguity and life-cycle portfolio allocation.
*Review of Economic Dynamics*,*14*(2), 339–367.Google Scholar - Carbone, E., & Duffy, J. (2014). Lifecycle consumption plans, social learning and external habits: Experimental evidence.
*Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization*,*106*, 413–427.Google Scholar - Carbone, E., & Hey, J. D. (2004). The effect of unemployment on consumption: An experimental analysis.
*The Economic Journal*,*114*(497), 660–683.Google Scholar - Carbone, E., & Infante, G. (2014). Comparing behavior under risk and under ambiguity in a lifecycle experiment.
*Theory and Decision*,*57*, 313–322.Google Scholar - Carbone, E., & Infante, G. (2015). Are groups better planners than individuals? An experimental analysis.
*Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics*,*57*, 112–119.Google Scholar - Carlsson, F., He, H., Martinsson, P., Qin, P., & Sutter, M. (2012). Household decision making in rural China: Using experiments to estimate the influences of spouses.
*Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization*,*84*(2), 525–536.Google Scholar - Charness, G., Karni, E., & Levin, D. (2007). Individual and group decision making under risk: An experimental study of Bayesian updating and violations of first-order stochastic dominance.
*Journal of Risk and Uncertainty*,*35*(2), 129–148.Google Scholar - Charness, G., Karni, E., & Levin, D. (2010). On the conjunction fallacy in probability judgment: New experimental evidence regarding linda.
*Games and Economic Behavior*,*68*(2), 551–556.Google Scholar - Charness, G., Karni, E., & Levin, D. (2013). Ambiguity attitudes and social interactions: An experimental investigation.
*Journal of Risk and Uncertainty*,*46*(1), 1–25.Google Scholar - Charness, G., & Sutter, M. (2012). Groups make better self-interested decisions.
*Journal of Economic Perspectives*,*26*(3), 157–76.Google Scholar - Cohen, M., Gilboa, I., & Schmeidler, D. (2000). An experimental study of updating ambiguous beliefs.
*Risk Decision and Policy*,*5*(2), 123–133.Google Scholar - Conte, A., & Hey, J. (2013). Assessing multiple prior models of behaviour under ambiguity.
*Journal of Risk and Uncertainty*,*46*(2), 113–132.Google Scholar - Cooper, D., & Kagel, J. (2005). Are two heads better than one? Team versus individual play in signaling games.
*American Economic Review*,*95*(3), 477–509.Google Scholar - Curley, S., Yates, F., & Abrams, R. (1986). Psychological sources of ambiguity avoidance.
*Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes*,*38*(2), 230–256.Google Scholar - Denant-Boemont, L., Diecidue, E., & l’Haridon, O. (2016). Patience and time consistency in collective decisions.
*Experimental Economics*(page forthcoming).Google Scholar - Dominiak, A., Dürsch, P., & Lefort, J. (2012). A dynamic ellsberg urn experiment.
*Games and Economic Behavior*,*75*, 625–638.Google Scholar - Duffy, J. (2014). Macroeconomics: A survey of laboratory research. Technical report, University of California.Google Scholar
- Dutt, V., Arló-Costa, H., Helzner, J., & Gonzalez, C. (2014). The description-experience gap in risky and ambiguous gambles.
*Journal of Behavioral Decision Making*,*27*, 316–327.Google Scholar - Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, ambiguity and the savage axioms.
*Quarterly Journal of Economics*,*75*, 643–669.Google Scholar - Epstein, L., Noor, J., & Sandroni, A. (2010). Non-bayesian learning.
*The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics*,*10*(1), 1–20.Google Scholar - Epstein, L., & Schneider, M. (2007). Learning under ambiguity.
*Review of Economic Studies*,*74*(4), 1275–1303.Google Scholar - Etner, J., Jeleva, M., & Tallon, J. (2012). Decision theory under ambiguity.
*Journal of Economic Surveys*,*26*(2), 234–270.Google Scholar - Feltovich, N., & Ejebu, O. (2014). Do positional goods inhibit saving? Evidence from a life-cycle experiment.
*Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization*,*107*, 440–454. (Empirical Behavioral Finance).Google Scholar - Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments.
*Experimental Economics*,*10*(2), 171–178.Google Scholar - Gillet, J., Schram, A., & Sonnemans, J. (2009). The tragedy of the commons revisited: The importance of group decision-making.
*Journal of Public Economics*,*93*(5–6), 785–797.Google Scholar - Güney, c, & Newell, B. (2015). Overcoming ambiguity aversion through experience.
*Journal of Behavioral Decision Making*,*28*, 188–199.Google Scholar - Halevy, Y. (2007). Ellsberg revisited: An experimental study.
*Econometrica*,*75*(2), 503–536.Google Scholar - Hey, J., & Pace, N. (2014). The explanatory and predictive power of non two-stage-probability models of decision making under ambiguity.
*Journal of Risk and Uncertainty*,*49*(1), 1–29.Google Scholar - Hey, J. D., & Dardanoni, V. (1988). Optimal consumption under uncertainty: An experimental investigation.
*The Economic Journal*,*98*(390), 105–116.Google Scholar - Jackson, M. O., & Yariv, L. (2014). Present bias and collective dynamic choice in the lab.
*American Economic Review*,*104*(12), 4184–4204.Google Scholar - Keck, S., Diecidue, E., & Budescu, D. (2014). Group decisions under ambiguity: Convergence to neutrality.
*Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization*,*103*, 60–71.Google Scholar - Keller, R., Sarin, R., & Sounderpandian, J. (2007). An examination of ambiguity aversion: Are two heads better than one?
*Judgment and Decision Making*,*2*(6), 390–397.Google Scholar - Klibanoff, P., Marinacci, M., & Mukerji, S. (2005). A smooth model of decision making under ambiguity.
*Econometrica*,*73*(6), 1849–1892.Google Scholar - Kugler, T., Kausel, E. E., & Kocher, M. G. (2012). Are group more rational than individuals? A review of interactive decision making in groups.
*Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Cognitive Science*,*3*(4), 471–482.Google Scholar - Lahno, A. M. (2014). Social anchor effects in decision-making under ambiguity. Discussion Papers in Economics 20960, University of Munich, Department of Economics.Google Scholar
- Levati, V., Napel, S., & Soraperra, I. (2016). Collective choices under ambiguity.
*Group Decision and Negotiation*,*26*, 1–17.Google Scholar - Masclet, D., Colombier, N., Denant-Boemont, L., & Lohéac, Y. (2009). Group and individual risk preferences: A lottery-choice experiment with self-employed and salaried workers.
*Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization*,*70*(3), 470–484. (Field Experiments in Economics).Google Scholar - Meissner, T. (2015). Intertemporal consumption and debt aversion: An experimental study.
*Experimental Economics*,*19*, 1–18.Google Scholar - Muthukrishnan, A., Wathieu, L., & Xu, J. (2009). Ambiguity aversion and the preference for established brands.
*Management Science*,*55*(12), 1933–1941.Google Scholar - Nicholls, N., Romm, A. T., & Zimper, A. (2015). The impact of statistical learning on violations of the sure-thing principle.
*Journal of Risk and Uncertainty*,*50*(2), 97–115.Google Scholar - Peijnenburg (2015). Life-cycle asset allocation with ambiguity aversion and learning. Working paper.Google Scholar
- R Core Team. (2013).
*R: A language and environment for statistical computing*. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar - Savage, L. (1954).
*The foundations of statistics*. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar - Schotter, A., & Braunstein, Y. (1981). Economic search: An experinental study.
*Economic In*,*19*(1), 1–25.Google Scholar - Shapiro, J. (2010). Discounting for you, me and we: Time preference in groups and pairs.
*mimeo*.Google Scholar - Shupp, R., & Williams, A. (2008). Risk preference differentials of small groups and individuals.
*The Economic Journal*,*118*(525), 258–283.Google Scholar - Stahl, D. (2014). Heterogeneity of ambiguity preferences.
*The Review of Economics and Statistics*,*96*(5), 609–617.Google Scholar - Trautmann, S., & van de Kuilen, G. (2015).
*Wiley Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making, chapter Ambiguity Attitudes*(pp. 89–116). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar - Trautmann, S., Vieider, F., & Wakker, P. (2008). Causes of ambiguity aversion: Known versus unknown preferences.
*Journal of Risk and Uncertainty*,*36*(3), 225–243.Google Scholar - Viscusi, W. (1985). A Bayesian perspective on biases in risk perception.
*Economics Letters*,*17*(1–2), 59–62.Google Scholar - Viscusi, W., & O’Connor, J. (1984). Adaptive responses to chemical labeling: Are workers Bayesian decision makers?
*The American Economic Review*,*74*(5), 942–956.Google Scholar - Zhang, J., & Casari, M. (2012). How groups reach agreement in risky choices.
*Economic Inquiry*,*50*(2), 502–515.Google Scholar - Zimper, A., & Ludwig, A. (2009). On attitude polarization under Bayesian learning with non-additive beliefs.
*Journal of Risk and Uncertainty*,*39*(2), 181–212.Google Scholar