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 AbstractBeing the leader in a group often involves making risky decisions that affect the payoffs of all members, and the decision to take this responsibility in a group is endogenous in many contexts.In this paper, we experimentally study: (1) the willingness of men and women to make risky decisions on behalf of a group, (2) the amount of risk men and women take for the group, in comparison to their individual decisions. We observe a striking difference between males and females, with a much lower fraction of women being willing to make the group decision than men. The amount of risk taken for the group is generally lower than in the case where subjects decide for themselves only, indicating a cautious shift. The women that would like to make the group decision and the women that do not are no different in terms of how much risk they take for themselves, nor for their group. For men, on the other hand, we find that the ones who would like to lead tend to take more risk on behalf of the group. We also present several results on the relationship of risk-taking and leadership decisions with personality traits.

We use a large non-student sample to test how distinct measures of risk-attitudes relate to each other, to demographic characteristics and to real-life risk taking in the financial domain. These measures, namely the Bomb Risk Elicitation Task (BRET), self-reported willingness to take risks in general, the choice in a hypothetical lottery, the score in the Domain Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) scale, appear to be positively correlated and exhibit a certain degree of consistency. Furthermore, a subset is driven by similar demographic characteristics as they are related positively to gender and negatively to age. Using extensive data on the retirement portfolios of the participants during the years 2008-2014, we find that all of these measures except the BRET, are positively correlated with the riskiness of individual portfolios. We observe that the most significant correlation is observed for self-reported willingness to take risks in general.

We examine theoretically and experimentally how individuals' willingness to follow third-party recommendations in 2x2 games is affected by payoff asymmetry. We consider six versions of Battle-of-the-Sexes. Recommendations imply monetary payoffs that are equal ex ante, but unequal ex post. So, although following recommendations constitutes a Nash equilibrium under standard preferences, sufficiently inequity-averse players can rationally disobey a recommendation that would lead to a very unfavourable payoff distribution, as long as the cost of doing so is not too large. Our theoretical model incorporates inequity aversion, along with level-k reasoning. Our main experimental result is consistent with the model: as either payoff asymmetry increases or the cost of disobeying an unfavourable recommendation decreases, subjects are more likely to disobey recommendations.

No abstract

*Journal of Political Economy Link* https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/674409 *Full Bibliographic Reference* Gurdal, M.Y., Miller, J.B., & Rustichini, A. (2013), Why Blame?, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 121, No. 6, pp. 1205-1246 ********************************************************* We provide experimental evidence that subjects blame others on the basis of events they are not responsible for. In our experiment an agent chooses between a lottery and a safe asset; payment from the chosen option goes to a principal, who then decides how much to allocate between the agent and a third party. We observe widespread blame: regardless of their choice, agents are blamed by principals for the outcome of the lottery, an event they are not responsible for. We provide an explanation of this apparently irrational behavior with a delegated expertise principal agent model, the subjects’ salient perturbation of the environment.