IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0201547.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is human life worth peanuts? Risk attitude changes in accordance with varying stakes

Author

Listed:
  • Kazumi Shimizu
  • Daisuke Udagawa

Abstract

Risk aversion is well-known as a general and robust characteristic of people’s decision making: people are less likely to gamble when they are unsure if they will obtain the expected value of the bet made. The “peanuts effect” is, however, an exception to this general rule. The “peanuts effect,” which states that people are more willing to gamble when playing for “peanuts” (a small outcome), has been stably observed in the context of a small monetary stake. We conducted two types of experiments to verify whether the peanuts effect still occurred when the type of stakes changed. We had two main findings. On the one hand, people tended to gamble more for a qualitatively smaller value when the stake was material in nature, meaning that the “peanuts effect” occurred with a qualitatively low stake. On the other hand, people were willing to take a risk for a qualitatively larger value when the stake was a human life: this is the opposite phenomenon of the “peanuts effect.”

Suggested Citation

  • Kazumi Shimizu & Daisuke Udagawa, 2018. "Is human life worth peanuts? Risk attitude changes in accordance with varying stakes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-12, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0201547
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0201547
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201547
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201547&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0201547?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. Harry Markowitz, 1952. "The Utility of Wealth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 60(2), pages 151-151.
    2. James H. Fowler & Tim Johnson & Oleg Smirnov, 2005. "Egalitarian motive and altruistic punishment," Nature, Nature, vol. 433(7021), pages 1-1, January.
    3. Christopher T. Dawes & James H. Fowler & Tim Johnson & Richard McElreath & Oleg Smirnov, 2007. "Egalitarian motives in humans," Nature, Nature, vol. 446(7137), pages 794-796, April.
    4. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. Henrich, Joseph & Boyd, Robert & Bowles, Samuel & Camerer, Colin & Fehr, Ernst & Gintis, Herbert (ed.), 2004. "Foundations of Human Sociality: Economic Experiments and Ethnographic Evidence from Fifteen Small-Scale Societies," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199262052.
    6. Myerson, Joel & Green, Leonard & Scott Hanson, J. & Holt, Daniel D. & Estle, Sara J., 2003. "Discounting delayed and probabilistic rewards: Processes and traits," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 619-635, October.
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:6:y:2011:i:2:p:156-162 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Weber, Bethany J. & Chapman, Gretchen B., 2005. "Playing for peanuts: Why is risk seeking more common for low-stakes gambles?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 97(1), pages 31-46, May.
    9. Wang, X. T., 1996. "Framing Effects: Dynamics and Task Domains," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 145-157, November.
    10. Kuhberger, Anton & Schulte-Mecklenbeck, Michael & Perner, Josef, 1999. "The Effects of Framing, Reflection, Probability, and Payoff on Risk Preference in Choice Tasks, ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 78(3), pages 204-231, June.
    11. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i:8:p:619-635 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Fagley, N. S. & Miller, Paul M., 1997. "Framing Effects and Arenas of Choice: Your Money or Your Life?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 71(3), pages 355-373, September.
    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. Georgalos, Konstantinos & Paya, Ivan & Peel, David A., 2021. "On the contribution of the Markowitz model of utility to explain risky choice in experimental research," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 527-543.
    2. Kuhberger, Anton & Schulte-Mecklenbeck, Michael & Perner, Josef, 1999. "The Effects of Framing, Reflection, Probability, and Payoff on Risk Preference in Choice Tasks, ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 78(3), pages 204-231, June.
    3. Weber, Bethany J. & Chapman, Gretchen B., 2005. "Playing for peanuts: Why is risk seeking more common for low-stakes gambles?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 97(1), pages 31-46, May.
    4. Renata M. Heilman & Petko Kusev & Mircea Miclea & Joseph Teal & Rose Martin & Alessia Passanisi & Ugo Pace, 2021. "Are Impulsive Decisions Always Irrational? An Experimental Investigation of Impulsive Decisions in the Domains of Gains and Losses," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-14, August.
    5. Mandel, David R., 2001. "Gain-Loss Framing and Choice: Separating Outcome Formulations from Descriptor Formulations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 85(1), pages 56-76, May.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:1:p:81-89 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Philip Bromiley, 2009. "A Prospect Theory Model of Resource Allocation," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 6(3), pages 124-138, September.
    8. Kuhberger, Anton, 1998. "The Influence of Framing on Risky Decisions: A Meta-analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 23-55, July.
    9. Hopfensitz, Astrid, 2009. "Previous outcomes and reference dependence: A meta study of repeated investment tasks with and without restricted feedback," MPRA Paper 16096, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Emmanuel Kemel & Corina Paraschiv, 2018. "Deciding about human lives: an experimental measure of risk attitudes under prospect theory," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 51(1), pages 163-192, June.
    11. Nina Mazar & Kristina Shampanier & Dan Ariely, 2017. "When Retailing and Las Vegas Meet: Probabilistic Free Price Promotions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(1), pages 250-266, January.
    12. Sumitava Mukherjee & Arvind Sahay & V. S. Chandrasekhar Pammi & Narayanan Srinivasan, 2017. "Is loss-aversion magnitude-dependent? Measuring prospective affective judgments regarding gains and losses," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(1), pages 81-89, January.
    13. Emily Haisley & Romel Mostafa & George Loewenstein, 2008. "Myopic risk-seeking: The impact of narrow decision bracketing on lottery play," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 57-75, August.
    14. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:2:p:198-203 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Kuehnhanss, Colin R. & Heyndels, Bruno & Hilken, Katharina, 2015. "Choice in politics: Equivalency framing in economic policy decisions and the influence of expertise," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 40(PB), pages 360-374.
    16. Peel, D.A., 2013. "Heterogeneous agents and the implications of the Markowitz model of utility for multi-prize lottery tickets," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 119(3), pages 264-267.
    17. Hopfensitz, Astrid, 2009. "Previous Outcomes and Reference Dependence: A Meta Study of Repeated Investment Tasks with Restricted Feedback," TSE Working Papers 09-087, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    18. Peel, D.A. & Zhang, Jie, 2012. "On the potential for observational equivalence in experiments on risky choice when a power value function is assumed," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 116(1), pages 8-10.
    19. Amber Bloomfield & Josh Sager & Daniel Bartels & Douglas Medin, 2006. "Caring about framing effects," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 5(2), pages 123-138, November.
    20. repec:cup:judgdm:v:6:y:2011:i:2:p:156-162 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Helga Fehr-Duda & Adrian Bruhin & Thomas Epper & Renate Schubert, 2010. "Rationality on the rise: Why relative risk aversion increases with stake size," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 147-180, April.
    22. Zachary Michaelson, 2015. "Biases in choices about fairness: Psychology and economic inequality," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(2), pages 198-203, March.
    23. Kazumi Shimizu & Daisuke Udagawa, 2011. "A re-examination of the effect of contextual group size on people's attitude to risk," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(2), pages 156-162, February.

    More about this item

    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:plo:pone00:0201547. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.