There is a large volume of research showing that emotions have relevant effects on decision‐making. We contribute to this literature by experimentally investigating the impact of four specific emotional states—joviality, sadness, fear and anger—on risk attitudes. In order to do so, we fit two models of behaviour under risk: the expected utility model and the rank dependent expected utility model, assuming several functional forms of the weighting function. Our results indicate that all emotional states mitigate risk aversion. Furthermore, we show that there are some differences across gender and participants’ experience in laboratory experiments.

No abstract

No abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in AbstractWe enrich the choice task of responders in ultimatum games by allowing them to independently decide whether to collect what is offered to them and whether to destroy what the proposer demanded. Such a multidimensional response format intends to cast further light on the motives guiding responder behavior. Using a conservative and stringent approach to type classification, we find that the overwhelming majority of responder participants choose consistently with outcomebased preference models. There are, however, few responders that destroy the proposer's demand of a large pie share and concurrently reject their own offer, thereby suggesting a strong concern for integrity.

Many socially desirable actions are subject to risk and occur in situations where the others are not anonymous. Assessing whether lower subject-subject anonymity affects behavior when outcomes are risky is likely important but has not been studied in depth so far. Herein, we provide evidence on this issue. In a series of allocation tasks, all of them variations of the dictator game, we systematically vary the party who is exposed to risk and manipulaterecipient anonymity by reducing the social and/or moral distance between the two parties. We propose a model that extends previous work by allowing not only for ex ante and ex post fairness but also for altruism. The model is consistent with observed behavior. In particular, a reduction in social and moral distance significantly increases the likelihood of equal split and more than equal split choices.