IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/joepsy/v68y2018icp1-15.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Young adults gamble less when observed by peers

Author

Listed:
  • Tymula, Agnieszka
  • Whitehair, Jackson

Abstract

The impact of peer presence on the choices made by young people is yet to be fully understood. Using an incentive compatible experiment, we investigate whether: (1) young people’s willingness to accept known and unknown risks varies when in the presence of an observer of the similar age compared to in private and (2) whether these preferences are affected by having observed peer’s decisions. We find that young adults do not gamble more when observed by peers, rather they become more ambiguity averse.

Suggested Citation

  • Tymula, Agnieszka & Whitehair, Jackson, 2018. "Young adults gamble less when observed by peers," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 1-15.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:joepsy:v:68:y:2018:i:c:p:1-15
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joep.2018.07.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167487017307018
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joep.2018.07.005?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. Cooper, David J. & Rege, Mari, 2011. "Misery loves company: Social regret and social interaction effects in choices under risk and uncertainty," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 91-110, September.
    2. Matthias Sutter, 2009. "Individual Behavior and Group Membership: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(5), pages 2247-2257, December.
    3. Jayson L. Lusk & Keith H. Coble, 2005. "Risk Perceptions, Risk Preference, and Acceptance of Risky Food," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 393-405.
    4. Ingrid Rohde & Kirsten Rohde, 2011. "Risk attitudes in a social context," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 205-225, December.
    5. A. V. Muthukrishnan & Luc Wathieu & Alison Jing Xu, 2009. "Ambiguity Aversion and the Preference for Established Brands," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(12), pages 1933-1941, December.
    6. Anderson, Lisa R. & Mellor, Jennifer M., 2008. "Predicting health behaviors with an experimental measure of risk preference," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 1260-1274, September.
    7. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    8. Curley, Shawn P. & Yates, J. Frank & Abrams, Richard A., 1986. "Psychological sources of ambiguity avoidance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 230-256, October.
    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.
    10. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    11. Kocher, Martin G. & Lahno, Amrei Marie & Trautmann, Stefan T., 2018. "Ambiguity aversion is not universal," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 268-283.
    12. Amrei Lahno & Marta Serra-Garcia, 2015. "Peer effects in risk taking: Envy or conformity?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 73-95, February.
    13. Stefan Trautmann & Ferdinand Vieider & Peter Wakker, 2008. "Causes of ambiguity aversion: Known versus unknown preferences," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 225-243, June.
    14. Greiner, Ben, 2004. "An Online Recruitment System for Economic Experiments," MPRA Paper 13513, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Castillo, Marco & Jordan, Jeffrey L. & Petrie, Ragan, 2018. "Children’s rationality, risk attitudes and field behavior," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 62-81.
    16. Guido Baltussen & Martijn J. van den Assem & Dennie van Dolder, 2016. "Risky Choice in the Limelight," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 98(2), pages 318-332, May.
    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. Albert, Philipp & Kübler, Dorothea & Silva-Goncalves, Juliana, 2022. "Peer effects of ambition," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 193(C), pages 161-195.
    2. Grimm, Stefan, 2018. "Show What You Risk - Norms for Risk Taking," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 119, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    3. Aljoscha Minnich & Andreas Lange, 2023. "Ambiguity Attitudes of Individuals and Groups in Gain and Loss Domains," CESifo Working Paper Series 10781, CESifo.
    4. Tymula, Agnieszka, 2019. "An experimental study of adolescent behavior under peer observation: Adolescents are more impatient and inconsistent, not more risk-taking, when observed by peers," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 735-750.
    5. Tymula, Agnieszka & Wang, Xueting, 2021. "Increased risk-taking, not loss tolerance, drives adolescents’ propensity to choose risky prospects more often under peer observation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 439-457.

    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. M. Vittoria Levati & Stefan Napel & Ivan Soraperra, 2017. "Collective Choices Under Ambiguity," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 133-149, January.
    2. Füllbrunn, Sascha & Rau, Holger A. & Weitzel, Utz, 2014. "Does ambiguity aversion survive in experimental asset markets?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PB), pages 810-826.
    3. Julius Pahlke & Sebastian Strasser & Ferdinand Vieider, 2015. "Responsibility effects in decision making under risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 125-146, October.
    4. Lahno, Amrei M., 2014. "Social anchor effects in decision-making under ambiguity," Discussion Papers in Economics 20960, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    5. Tymula, Agnieszka & Wang, Xueting, 2021. "Increased risk-taking, not loss tolerance, drives adolescents’ propensity to choose risky prospects more often under peer observation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 439-457.
    6. Bolton, Gary E. & Ockenfels, Axel & Stauf, Julia, 2015. "Social responsibility promotes conservative risk behavior," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 109-127.
    7. Keck, Steffen & Diecidue, Enrico & Budescu, David V., 2014. "Group decisions under ambiguity: Convergence to neutrality," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 60-71.
    8. Dmitri Vinogradov & Yousef Makhlouf, 2021. "Signaling probabilities in ambiguity: who reacts to vague news?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 90(3), pages 371-404, May.
    9. 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.
    10. Dmitri Vinogradov & Yousef Makhlouf, 2017. "Signaling Probabilities in Ambiguity: on the impact of vague news," Working Papers 2017_12, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow.
    11. Tymula, Agnieszka, 2019. "An experimental study of adolescent behavior under peer observation: Adolescents are more impatient and inconsistent, not more risk-taking, when observed by peers," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 735-750.
    12. Timo Heinrich & Thomas Mayrhofer, 2018. "Higher-order risk preferences in social settings," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(2), pages 434-456, June.
    13. Angela C. M. Oliveira, 2021. "When risky decisions generate externalities," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 63(1), pages 59-79, August.
    14. Bougheas, Spiros & Nieboer, Jeroen & Sefton, Martin, 2013. "Risk-taking in social settings: Group and peer effects," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 273-283.
    15. 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.
    16. Oechssler, Jörg & Roomets, Alex, 2015. "A test of mechanical ambiguity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 153-162.
    17. Jim Engle-Warnick & Sonia Laszlo, 2017. "Learning-by-doing in an ambiguous environment," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 55(1), pages 71-94, August.
    18. Ingrid T. Rohde & Kirsten M. Rohde, 2015. "Managing social risks – tradeoffs between risks and inequalities," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 103-124, October.
    19. Fabian Bopp & Sara le Roux, 2023. "Social learning under ambiguity - an experimental study," Working Papers Dissertations 110, Paderborn University, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics.
    20. Alexandros Karakostas & Giles Morgan & Daniel John Zizzo, 2023. "Socially interdependent risk taking," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 95(3), pages 365-378, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Observation; Risk; Uncertainty;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • 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:eee:joepsy:v:68:y:2018:i:c:p:1-15. 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/joep .

    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.