IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cea/doctra/e2004_12.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Strategic Uncertainty and Risk Attitudes:"The Experimental Connection"

Author

Abstract

In this paper we obtain empirical evidence of the relationship between individuals' risk attitudes and individuals' beliefs on their rival's choices in the Prisoners' Dilemma game. We find that (i) Risk-averse subjects seem to think that their opponent will defect, (ii) Risk-loving individuals tend to think that their opponent will cooperate with higher probabilities, and (iii) finally, those subjects who believe that the rival will behave rationally are more risk averse than those subjects that believe that the rival will make a mistake, who on average are risk neutral.

Suggested Citation

  • Pablo Brañas Garza & Francisca Jiménez Jiménez & Antonio Morales, 2004. "Strategic Uncertainty and Risk Attitudes:"The Experimental Connection"," Economic Working Papers at Centro de Estudios Andaluces E2004/12, Centro de Estudios Andaluces.
    • Handle: RePEc:cea:doctra:e2004_12
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://public.centrodeestudiosandaluces.es/pdfs/E200412.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wulf Albers & Robin Pope & Reinhard Selten & Bodo Vogt, 2000. "Experimental Evidence for Attractions to Chance," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 1(2), pages 113-130, May.
    2. Brosig, Jeannette, 2002. "Identifying cooperative behavior: some experimental results in a prisoner's dilemma game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 275-290, March.
    3. 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.
    4. Sabater-Grande, Gerardo & Georgantzis, Nikolaos, 2002. "Accounting for risk aversion in repeated prisoners' dilemma games: an experimental test," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 37-50, 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. Lisa Anderson & Beth Freeborn & Jason Hulbert, 2012. "Risk Aversion and Tacit Collusion in a Bertrand Duopoly Experiment," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 40(1), pages 37-50, February.
    2. Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Guillen, Pablo & del Paso, Rafael López, 2008. "Math skills and risk attitudes," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 99(2), pages 332-336, May.
    3. Sabater-Grande, Gerardo & García-Gallego, Aurora & Georgantzís, Nikolaos & Herranz-Zarzoso, Noemí, 2022. "The effects of personality, risk and other-regarding attitudes on trust and reciprocity," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 96(C).

    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. Pablo Brañas-Garza, 2006. "Why gender based game theory?," ThE Papers 06/08, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    2. Douglas Davis & Asen Ivanov & Oleg Korenok, 2016. "Individual characteristics and behavior in repeated games: an experimental study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(1), pages 67-99, March.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:3:p:234-279 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Christoph Engel & Lilia Zhurakhovska, 2011. "Oligopoly as a Socially Embedded Dilemma. An Experiment," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2011_01, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    5. Al-Ubaydli, Omar & Jones, Garett & Weel, Jaap, 2016. "Average player traits as predictors of cooperation in a repeated prisoner's dilemma," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 50-60.
    6. Giuseppe Attanasi & Anna Maffioletti & Giulia Papini & Patrizia Sbriglia & Maria Luigia Signore, 2023. "Beyond the Threshold: How Electoral Size-Dependent Uncertainty Affects Majority Determination," GREDEG Working Papers 2023-12, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    7. Miriam Al Lily, 2023. "Establishing human connections: experimental evidence from the helping game," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 52(3), pages 805-832, September.
    8. Tamás Csermely & Alexander Rabas, 2016. "How to reveal people’s preferences: Comparing time consistency and predictive power of multiple price list risk elicitation methods," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 107-136, December.
    9. Giuseppe Attanasi & Nikolaos Georgantzís & Valentina Rotondi & Daria Vigani, 2018. "Lottery- and survey-based risk attitudes linked through a multichoice elicitation task," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(3), pages 341-372, May.
    10. Giuseppe Attanasi & Kene Boun My & Nikolaos Georgantzís & Miguel Ginés, 2019. "Strategic Ethics: Altruism without the Other-Regarding Confound," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 70(6), pages 967-998.
    11. Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Guillen, Pablo & del Paso, Rafael López, 2008. "Math skills and risk attitudes," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 99(2), pages 332-336, May.
    12. Fabien Perez & Guillaume Hollard & Radu Vranceanu, 2021. "How serious is the measurement-error problem in risk-aversion tasks?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 63(3), pages 319-342, December.
    13. Aurora García-Gallego & Nikolaos Georgantzís & Ainhoa Jaramillo-Gutiérrez & Melanie Parravano, 2010. "The lottery-panel task for bi-dimensional parameter-free elicitation of risk attitudes," ThE Papers 10/12, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    14. Kocher, Martin G. & Martinsson, Peter & Matzat, Dominik & Wollbrant, Conny, 2015. "The role of beliefs, trust, and risk in contributions to a public good," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 236-244.
    15. Xu, Xue & Zheng, Kun, 2024. "Private monitoring revisited: When does a shared history matter?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    16. Lisa Anderson & Beth Freeborn & Jason Hulbert, 2012. "Risk Aversion and Tacit Collusion in a Bertrand Duopoly Experiment," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 40(1), pages 37-50, February.
    17. Saldarriaga-Isaza, Adrián & Villegas-Palacio, Clara & Arango, Santiago, 2015. "Phasing out mercury through collective action in artisanal gold mining: Evidence from a framed field experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 406-415.
    18. Eugenio Proto & Aldo Rustichini & Andis Sofianos, 2019. "Intelligence, Personality, and Gains from Cooperation in Repeated Interactions," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 127(3), pages 1351-1390.
    19. Giuseppe Attanasi & Luca Corazzini & Nikolaos Georgantzís & Francesco Passarelli, 2014. "Special Section: Experiments on Learning, Methods, and Voting," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(3), pages 355-386, August.
    20. Lau Lilleholt, 2019. "Cognitive ability and risk aversion: A systematic review and meta analysis," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(3), pages 234-279, May.
    21. Aurora García-Gallego & Nikolaos Georgantzís & Pedro Pereira & José C. Pernías-Cerrillo, 2005. "Competing Against Simulated Equilibrium Price Dispersions: An Experiment On Internet-Assisted Search Markets," Working Papers 05-12, NET Institute.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Expected utility theory; Risk attitudes; Strategic risk; Prisoners' Dilemma.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • C71 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Cooperative Games
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:cea:doctra:e2004_12. 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: Susana Mérida The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Susana Mérida to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fcanges.html .

    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.