Risk taking and information aggregation in groups (with Spiros Bougheas and Martin Sefton), Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 51 (2015), pp. 34-47. .
We report a controlled laboratory experiment examining risk-taking and information aggregation in groups facing a common risk. The experiment allows us to examine how subjects respond to new information, in the form of both privately observed signals and signals reported from others. We find that a considerable number of subjects exhibit ‘reverse confirmation bias’: they place less weight on information from others that agrees with their private signal and more weight on conflicting information. We also find a striking degree of consensus when subjects make decisions on behalf of the group under a random dictatorship procedure. Reverse confirmation bias and the incidence of consensus are considerably reduced when group members can share signals but not communicate.
NB: An previous version appeared as a CeDEx working paper with the same title.
Group member characteristics and risk taking by consensus, Journal of Behavioural and Experimental Economics, Vol. 57 (2015), pp. 81-88.
Abstract and data
I investigate the effect of group members’ individual characteristics on risk taking by groups in an investment experiment. I find that gender is the only of the characteristics that significantly affects risk taking, both for individual investments and group investment decisions by consensus. In individual decisions, women are more risk averse than men. In groups, risk aversion is increasing in the number of female group members. I make out-of-sample predictions of group decisions for different gender compositions based on the sample of individual preferences using simulation of various ‘social decision schemes’. Generally, none of the schemes predicts group decisions well. These results pose new challenges for theories of preference aggregation in groups and have practical implications for organizations that rely on teams to make decisions under risk.
Data and experimental instructions for this paper are freely downloadable as supplementary materials from the publisher’s website.
NB: An previous version appeared as a CeDEx working paper titled Risk taking in diverse groups: Gender matters.
How behavioural science can improve financial advice services (with Ivo Vlaev, Steve Martin and Paul Dolan), Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Vol. 20 (2015), pp. 74-88.
Evidence from the behavioural sciences, notably economics and psychology, has profoundly changed the way policymakers and practitioners view expert advice to consumers. In this article, we take stock of the behavioural science evidence on financial advice and explore its implications for the profession. We organise the evidence in a comprehensive theoretical framework that also serves a practical purpose: the design of behaviour change interventions. We suggest various ways in which financial advisers can use the insights from behavioural science to improve the take-up and effectiveness of their advice. Finally, we discuss ethical and practical considerations for the financial advisor wishing to put behavioural science knowledge to use.
Digit Ratio (2D:4D) and altruism: Evidence from a large, multi-ethnic sample (with Matteo M. Galizzi), Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, Vol. 9:41 (2015).
We look at the links between the Digit Ratio — the ratio of the length of the index finger to the length of the ring finger — for both right and left hands, and giving in a Dictator Game. Unlike previous studies with exclusively Caucasian subjects, we consider a large, ethnically diverse sample. Our main results are as follows. First, for Caucasian subjects we estimate a significant positive regression coefficient for the right hand digit ratio and a significant negative coefficient for its squared measure. These results replicate the findings of Brañas-Garza et al. (2013), who also observe an inverted U-shaped relationship for Caucasian subjects. Second, we are not able to find any significant association of the right hand digit ratio with giving in the Dictator Game for the other main ethnic groups in our sample, nor in the pooled sample. Third, we find no significant association between giving in the Dictator Game and the left hand digit ratio.
Risk taking in social settings: Group and peer effects (with Spiros Bougheas and Martin Sefton) Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Vol. 92 (2013), pp. 273-283.
We investigate experimentally the effect of consultation (unincentivized advice) on choices under risk in an incentivized investment task. We compare consultation to two benchmark treatments: one with isolated individual choices, and a second with group choice after communication. Our benchmark treatments replicate findings that groups take more risk than individuals in the investment task; content analysis of group discussions reveals that higher risk-taking in groups is positively correlated with mentions of expected value. In our consultation treatments, we find evidence of peer effects: decisions within the peer group are significantly correlated. However, average risk-taking after consultation is not significantly different from isolated individual choices. We also find that risk-taking after consultation is not affected by adding a feedback stage in which subjects see the choices of their consultation peers.
NB: A previous version appeared as a CeDEx working paper with the same title.