IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jeborg/v84y2012i1p163-173.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decision making and risk aversion in the Cash Cab

Author

Listed:
  • Bliss, Richard T.
  • Potter, Mark E.
  • Schwarz, Christopher

Abstract

We use the Emmy Award-winning game show Cash Cab to study decision-making in a risky framework. This is a unique environment because, unlike other game shows used to examine risk-aversion, players participate individually or in teams varying in number from two to five. This creates a natural laboratory to measure performance and risk aversion conditional upon the size of the team as well as the characteristics of the team members. Teams are much more likely to complete overall tasks successfully. Most importantly, risk aversion estimates indicate that when participants are part of a group, they focus on the overall size of the dollar amounts that are “at risk”, rather than their “slice of the pie”. The implications of our results span a number of areas where groups are part of the financial decision-making process, including investment analysis and portfolio management, corporate governance, and corporate finance.

Suggested Citation

  • Bliss, Richard T. & Potter, Mark E. & Schwarz, Christopher, 2012. "Decision making and risk aversion in the Cash Cab," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 163-173.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:84:y:2012:i:1:p:163-173
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2012.07.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268112001436
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jebo.2012.07.005?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    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, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 75(2), pages 367-382, October.
    2. 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.
    3. Bo Becker, 2006. "Wealth and Executive Compensation," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 61(1), pages 379-397, February.
    4. Jingjing Zhang & Marco Casari, 2012. "How Groups Reach Agreement In Risky Choices: An Experiment," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 50(2), pages 502-515, April.
    5. Thierry Post & Martijn J. van den Assem & Guido Baltussen & Richard H. Thaler, 2008. "Deal or No Deal? Decision Making under Risk in a Large-Payoff Game Show," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(1), pages 38-71, March.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Roger Hartley & Gauthier Lanot & Ian Walker, 2014. "Who Really Wants To Be A Millionaire? Estimates Of Risk Aversion From Gameshow Data," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(6), pages 861-879, September.
    9. John Y. Campbell & John Cochrane, 1999. "Force of Habit: A Consumption-Based Explanation of Aggregate Stock Market Behavior," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 107(2), pages 205-251, April.
    10. Michael Nwogugu, 2005. "Towards multi-factor models of decision making and risk: A critique of Prospect Theory and related approaches, part III," Journal of Risk Finance, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 6(3), pages 267-274, May.
    11. 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.
    12. Beetsma, Roel M W J & Schotman, Peter C, 2001. "Measuring Risk Attitudes in a Natural Experiment: Data from the Television Game Show Lingo," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 111(474), pages 821-848, October.
    13. Michael Nwogugu, 2005. "Towards multi-factor models of decision making and risk: A critique of Prospect Theory and related approaches, part I," Journal of Risk Finance, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 6(2), pages 150-162, March.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Metrick, Andrew, 1995. "A Natural Experiment in "Jeopardy!"," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(1), pages 240-253, March.
    17. Michael Nwogugu, 2005. "Towards multi-factor models of decision making and risk: A critique of Prospect Theory and related approaches, part II," Journal of Risk Finance, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 6(2), pages 163-173, March.
    18. Connel Fullenkamp & Rafael Tenorio & Robert Battalio, 2003. "Assessing Individual Risk Attitudes Using Field Data From Lottery Games," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 85(1), pages 218-226, February.
    19. 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.
    20. Robert Gertner, 1993. "Game Shows and Economic Behavior: Risk-Taking on "Card Sharks"," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 108(2), pages 507-521.
    21. Stavros Panageas & Mark M. Westerfield, 2009. "High‐Water Marks: High Risk Appetites? Convex Compensation, Long Horizons, and Portfolio Choice," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 64(1), pages 1-36, February.
    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. Matthew Kelley & Robert Lemke, 2015. "Gender differences when subjective probabilities affect risky decisions: an analysis from the television game show Cash Cab," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 78(1), pages 153-170, January.
    2. Giannikos, Christos I. & Kakolyris, Andreas & Suen, Tin Shan, 2023. "Prospect theory and a manager's decision to trade a blind principal bid basket," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    3. Luís Pacheco & Júlio Lobão & Sílvia Coelho, 2023. "Gender and Risk Aversion: Evidence from a Natural Experiment," Games, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-16, June.
    4. Klemens Keldenich & Marcus Klemm, 2014. "Double or nothing?! Small groups making decisions under risk in “Quiz Taxi”," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(2), pages 243-274, August.

    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. Klemens Keldenich & Marcus Klemm, 2011. "Double or Nothing!? Small Groups Making Decisions Under Risk in “Quiz Taxi”," Ruhr Economic Papers 0278, Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Universität Dortmund, Universität Duisburg-Essen.
    2. repec:zbw:rwirep:0278 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Keldenich, Klemens & Klemm, Marcus, 2011. "Double or Nothing!? Small Groups Making Decisions Under Risk in ""Quiz Taxi""," Ruhr Economic Papers 278, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    4. Klemens Keldenich & Marcus Klemm, 2014. "Double or nothing?! Small groups making decisions under risk in “Quiz Taxi”," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(2), pages 243-274, August.
    5. Cary Deck & Jungmin Lee & Javier Reyes & Chris Rosen, 2012. "Risk‐Taking Behavior: An Experimental Analysis of Individuals and Dyads," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 79(2), pages 277-299, October.
    6. Matthaei, Eva Kristina & Kiesewetter, Dirk, 2020. "A problem shared is a problem halved? Risky tax avoidance decisions and intra-group payoff conflict," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 258, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    7. Felix Bolduan & Ivo Schedlinsky & Friedrich Sommer, 2021. "The influence of compensation interdependence on risk-taking: the role of mutual monitoring," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 91(8), pages 1125-1148, October.
    8. Maria Karmeliuk & Martin G. Kocher & Georg Schmidt, 2022. "Teams and individuals in standard auction formats: decisions and emotions," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(5), pages 1327-1348, November.
    9. Bougheas, Spiros & Nieboer, Jeroen & Sefton, Martin, 2015. "Risk taking and information aggregation in groups," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 34-47.
    10. Antonio FILIPPIN & Paolo CROSETTO, 2014. "A Reconsideration of Gender Differences in Risk Attitudes," Departmental Working Papers 2014-01, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    11. Fukutomi, Masao & Ito, Nobuyuki & Mitani, Yohei, 2022. "How Group Size and Decision Rules Impact Risk Preferences: Comparing group and individual settings in lottery-choice experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    12. Ambrus, Attila & Greiner, Ben & Pathak, Parag A., 2015. "How individual preferences are aggregated in groups: An experimental study," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 1-13.
    13. Kugler, Tamar & Kausel, E.E. & Kocher, Martin G., 2012. "Are groups more rational than individuals? A review of interactive decision making in groups," Munich Reprints in Economics 18215, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    14. Enrica Carbone & Konstantinos Georgalos & Gerardo Infante, 2019. "Individual vs. group decision-making: an experiment on dynamic choice under risk and ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 87(1), pages 87-122, July.
    15. 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.
    16. Morone, Andrea & Temerario, Tiziana & Nemore, Francesco, 2017. "Individual and group preferences over risk: does group size matter?," MPRA Paper 82453, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Yoshio Kamijo & Teruyuki Tamura, 2023. "Risk-Averse and Self-Interested Shifts in Groups in Both Median and Random Rules," Games, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-21, February.
    18. Yoshio Kamijo & Teruyuki Tamura, 2016. "Altruistic and risk preference of individuals and groups," Working Papers SDES-2016-12, Kochi University of Technology, School of Economics and Management, revised Oct 2016.
    19. Bolton, Gary E. & Ockenfels, Axel & Stauf, Julia, 2015. "Social responsibility promotes conservative risk behavior," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 109-127.
    20. Anna Conte & Peter G. Moffatt & Fabrizio Botti & Daniela T. Di Cagno & Carlo D’Ippoliti, 2012. "A test of the rational expectations hypothesis using data from a natural experiment," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(35), pages 4661-4678, December.
    21. Roger Hartley & Gauthier Lanot & Ian Walker, 2014. "Who Really Wants To Be A Millionaire? Estimates Of Risk Aversion From Gameshow Data," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(6), pages 861-879, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Cash Cab; Risk aversion; Teams; Group decision making;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments

    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:eee:jeborg:v:84:y:2012:i:1:p:163-173. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jebo .

    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.