IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/restat/v98y2016i2p318-332.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risky Choice in the Limelight

Author

Listed:
  • Guido Baltussen

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam)

  • Martijn J. van den Assem

    (VU University Amsterdam)

  • Dennie van Dolder

    (University of Nottingham)

Abstract

This paper examines how risk behavior in the limelight differs from that in anonymity. In two separate experiments, we find that subjects are more risk averse in the limelight. However, risky choices are similarly path dependent in the different treatments. Under both limelight and anonymous laboratory conditions, a simple prospect theory model with a path-dependent reference point provides a better explanation for subjects’ behavior than a flexible specification of expected utility theory. In addition, our findings suggest that ambiguity aversion depends on being in the limelight, that passive experience has little effect on risk taking, and that reference points are determined by imperfectly updated expectations.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:tpr:restat:v:98:y:2016:i:2:p:318-332
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/REST_a_00505
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jia, Z. Tingting & McMahon, Matthew J., 2020. "Being watched in an investment game setting: Behavioral changes when making risky decisions," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    2. Auriol, Emmanuelle & Mesnard, Alice & Perrault, Tiffanie, 2023. "Weeding out the dealers? The economics of cannabis legalization," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 216(C), pages 62-101.
    3. Buser, Thomas & van den Assem, Martijn J. & van Dolder, Dennie, 2023. "Gender and willingness to compete for high stakes," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 206(C), pages 350-370.
    4. 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.
    5. Sebastian Oelrich, 2019. "Making regulation fit by taking irrationality into account: the case of the whistleblower," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(1), pages 175-207, April.
    6. Doron Sonsino & Yaron Lahav & Yefim Roth, 2022. "Reaching for Returns in Retail Structured Investment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(1), pages 466-486, January.
    7. Jetter, Michael & Walker, Jay K., 2020. "At what age does the anchoring heuristic emerge? Evidence from Jeopardy!," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 757-766.
    8. Czibor, Eszter & Claussen, Jörg & van Praag, Mirjam, 2019. "Women in a men’s world: Risk taking in an online card game community," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 62-89.
    9. Tymula, Agnieszka & Whitehair, Jackson, 2018. "Young adults gamble less when observed by peers," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 1-15.
    10. Tom Lane, 2020. "Along which identity lines does 21st-century Britain divide? Evidence from Big Brother," Rationality and Society, , vol. 32(2), pages 197-222, May.
    11. Jetter, Michael & Walker, Jay K., 2016. "Anchoring in Financial Decision-Making: Evidence from the Field," IZA Discussion Papers 10151, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    12. 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.
    13. Mujcic, Redzo & Powdthavee, Nattavudh, 2022. "How Do Humans Respond to Huge Financial Losses?," IZA Discussion Papers 15536, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Stefan Trautmann & Peter P. Wakker, 2018. "Making the Anscombe-Aumann approach to ambiguity suitable for descriptive applications," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 83-116, February.
    15. Edina Berlinger & Kata Váradi, 2015. "Risk Appetite," Public Finance Quarterly, State Audit Office of Hungary, vol. 60(1), pages 49-62.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    decision making under risk; risky choice; risk preferences; risk aversion; ambiguity aversion; limelight; accountability; public scrutiny; experience; game show; natural experiment; laboratory experiment; expected utility theory; prospect theory;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    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:tpr:restat:v:98:y:2016:i:2:p:318-332. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: The MIT Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://direct.mit.edu/journals .

    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.