|Lahno, Amrei M.; Serra-Garcia, Marta (Dezember 2012): Peer Effects in Risk Taking. Münchener Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Beiträge (VWL) 2012-34|
This paper examines the effect of peers on individual risk taking. In the absence of informational motives, we investigate why social utility concerns may drive peer effects. We test for two main channels: utility from payoff differences and from conforming to the peer. We show experimentally that social utility generates substantial peer effects in risk taking. These are mainly explained by utility from payoff differences, in line with outcomebased social preferences. Contrary to standard assumptions, we show that estimated social preference parameters change significantly when peers make active choices, compared to when lotteries are randomly assigned to them.
|Dokumententyp:||Paper (Discussion Paper)|
|Keywords:||Peer Effects, Decision Making under risk, Social Comparison, Social Preferences, Laboratory Experiment|
Volkswirtschaft > Munich Discussion Papers in Economics
|Themengebiete:||300 Sozialwissenschaften > 300 Sozialwissenschaft, Soziologie
300 Sozialwissenschaften > 330 Wirtschaft
|JEL Classification:||C91, C92, D03, D83, G02|
|Veröffentlicht am:||22. Dez. 2012 06:59|
|Letzte Änderungen:||04. Okt. 2016 13:07|
Ai, C. and E. C. Norton (2003). Interaction terms in logit and probit models. Economics Letters 80 (1), 123–129.
Anderson, L. R. and C. A. Holt (1997). Information cascades in the laboratory. The American Economic Review 87 (5), pp. 847–862.
Andreoni, J. and C. Sprenger (2009). Certain and uncertain utility: The allais paradox and five decision theory phenomena. Working Paper.
Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. a minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied 70 (9), 1–70.
Banerjee, A. V. (1992). A simple model of herd behavior. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 107 (3), 797–817.
Banerjee, A. V., A. G. Chandrasekhar, E. Duflo, and M. O. Jackson (2011). The diffusion of microfinance. NBER Working Paper 17743.
Bault, N., G. Coricelli, and A. Rustichini (2008). Interdependent utilities: How social ranking affects choice behavior. PLoS ONE 3 (10), e3477.
Bikhchandani, S., D. Hirshleifer, and I. Welch (1998). Learning from the behavior of others: Conformity, fads, and informational cascades. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 12 (3), pp. 151–170.
Blanco, M., D. Engelmann, and H. T. Normann (2011). A within-subject analysis of other-regarding preferences. Games and Economic Behavior 72 (2), 321–338.
Bolton, G. E. and A. Ockenfels (2000). ERC: A theory of equity, reciprocity and competition. The American Economic Review 90 (1), 166–193.
Brandts, J. and G. Charness (2011). The strategy versus the direct-response method: a first survey of experimental comparisons. Experimental Economics 14, 375–398.
Broyden, C. G. (1970). The convergence of a class of double-rank minimization algorithms. IMA Journal of Applied Mathematics 6 (1), 76–90.
Bursztyn, L., F. Ederer, B. Ferman, and N. Yuchtman (2012). Understanding peer effects in financial decisions: Evidence from a field experiment. NBER Working Paper 18241.
Cai, J. (2011). Social networks and the decision to insure: Evidence from randomized experiments in china. Job Market Paper.
Card, D., A. Mas, E. Moretti, and E. Saez (2010). Inequality at work: The effect of peer salaries on job satisfaction. NBER Working Paper 16396.
Celen, B. and S. Kariv (2004). Observational learning under imperfect information. Games and Economic Behavior 47 (1), 72–86.
Charness, G. and M. Rabin (2002). Understanding social preferences with simple tests. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 117 (3), 817–869.
Cialdini, R. B. and N. J. Goldstein (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology 55 (1), 591–621.
Conte, A., J. D. Hey, and P. G. Moffatt (2011). Mixture models of choice under risk. Journal of Econometrics 162 (1), 79–88.
Cooper, D. J. and M. Rege (2011). Misery loves company: Social regret and social interaction e↵ects in choices under risk and uncertainty. Games and Economic Behavior 73 (1), 91–110.
Duflo, E., P. Dupas, and M. Kremer (2011). Peer effects, teacher incentives, and the impact of tracking: Evidence from a randomized evaluation in kenya. The American Economic Review 101 (5), 1739–1774.
Duflo, E. and E. Saez (2002). Participation and investment decisions in a retirement plan: The influence of colleagues’ choices. Journal of Public Economics 85, 121–148.
Ellison, G. and D. Fudenberg (1993). Rules of thumb for social learning. Journal of Political Economy 101 (4), pp. 612–643.
Falk, A. and U. Fischbacher (2002). “Crime” in the lab-detecting social interaction. European Economic Review 46 (4-5), 859–869.
Falk, A. and U. Fischbacher (2006). A theory of reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior 54 (2), 293–315.
Falk, A., U. Fischbacher, and S. G¨achter (2013). Living in two neighborhoods – Social interaction effects in the laboratory. Economic Inquiry 51 (1), 563–578.
Falk, A. and A. Ichino (2006). Clean evidence on peer e↵ects. Journal of Labor Economics 24 (1), 39–57.
Falk, A., S. Meier, and C. Zehnder (2011). Do lab experiments misrepresent social preferences? the case of self-selected student samples. Journal of the European Economic Association. Forthcoming.
Fehr, E. and K. M. Schmidt (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 114 (3), 817–868.
Fershtman, C., U. Gneezy, and J. List (2012). Equity aversion: Social norms and the desire to be ahead. AEJ Microeconomics 4 (4), 131–144.
Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics 20 (2), 171–178.
Fletcher, R. (1970). A new approach to variable metric algorithms. The Computer Journal 13 (3), 317–322.
Gächter, S., D. Nosenzo, and M. Sefton (2012). Peer effects in pro-social behavior: Social norms or social preferences? Journal of the European Economic Association. Forthcoming.
Galí, J. (1994). Keeping up with the joneses: Consumption externalities, portfolio choice, and asset prices. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 26 (1), 1–8.
Georgarakos, D., M. Haliassos, and G. Pasini (2012). Household debt and social interactions. Working Paper.
Goeree, J. K. and L. Yariv (2007). Conformity in the lab. Working Paper.
Harrison, G. W., S. J. Humphrey, and A. Verschoor (2010). Choice under uncertainty: Evidence from ethiopia, india and uganda. The Economic Journal 120 (543), 80–104.
Harrison, G. W. and E. Rutström (2009). Expected utility theory and prospect theory: one wedding and a decent funeral. Experimental Economics 12, 133–158.
Hey, J. D. and C. Orme (1994). Investigating generalizations of expected utility theory using experimental data. Econometrica 6 (62), 1291–1326.
Holt, C. A. and S. K. Laury (2002). Risk aversion and incentive e↵ects. The American Economic Review 92 (5), 1644–1655.
Hong, H., J. D. Kubik, and J. C. Stein (2004). Social interaction and stock-market participation. The Journal of Finance 59 (1), 137–163.
Hopkins, E. and T. Kornienko (2004). Running to keep in the same place: Consumer choice as a game of status. The American Economic Review 94 (4), 1085–1107.
Huck, S. and J. Oechssler (2000). Informational cascades in the laboratory: Do they occur for the right reasons? Journal of Economic Psychology 21 (6), 661–671.
Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47 (2), 263–292.
Kast, F., S. Meier, and D. Pomeranz (2012). Under-savers anonymous: Evidence on self-help groups and peer pressure as a savings commitment device. IZA Discussion Paper 6311.
Köszegi, B. and M. Rabin (2007). Reference-dependent risk attitudes. The American Economic Review 97 (4), 1047–1073.
Kuhn, P., P. Kooreman, A. R. Soetevent, and A. Kapteyn (2011). The effects of lottery prizes on winners and their neighbors: Evidence from the dutch postcode lottery. The American Economic Review 101 (5), 2226–2247.
Lahno, A. M. and M. Serra-Garcia (2012). Certainty effects from a social perspective. Mimeo.
Linde, J. and J. Sonnemans (2012). Social comparison and risky choices. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 44 (1), 45–72.
Loomes, G. (2005). Modelling the stochastic component of behaviour in experiments: Some issues for the interpretation of data. Experimental Economics 8, 301–323.
Maccheroni, F., M. Marinacci, and A. Rustichini (2012). Social decision theory: Choosing within and between groups. The Review of Economic Studies 79, 1591–1636.
Manski, C. F. (1993). Identification of endogenous social effects: The reflection problem. The Review of Economic Studies 60 (3), 531–542.
Mas, A. and E. Moretti (2009). Peers at work. The American Economic Review 99 (1), 112–145.
Sacerdote, B. (2001). Peer effects with random assignment: Results for dartmouth roommates. Quarterly Journal of Economics 116 (2), 681–704.
Sacerdote, B. (2011). Peer effects in education: How might they work, how big are they and how much do we know thus far? Handbook of the Economics of Education 46, 249–277. Vol. 3.
Shiller, R. J. (1984). Stock prices and social dynamics. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (2), 457–498.
Sprenger, C. (2012). An endowment effect for risk: Experimental tests of stochastic reference points. Working Paper.
Trautmann, S. and F. Vieider (2011). Social influences on risk attitudes: Applications in economics. In S. Roeser (Ed.), Handbook of Risk Theory. Springer.
Trautmann, S. T. (2009). A tractable model of process fairness under risk. Journal of Economic Psychology 30 (5), 803–813.
von Gaudecker, H.-M., A. van Soest, and E. Wengström (2011). Heterogeneity in risky choice behavior in a broad population. The American Economic Review 101 (2), 664–694.