Relations between risk attitudes, culture and the endowment effect

• Autorzy: Kolnhofer-Derecskei A.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.2478/emj-2018-0019

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The main purpose of this research was to examine whether systematic cross-national differences existed in risk preferences. As a part of the survey, it was also tested how the subjects decided on behalf of their friends. Considering the type of risk-taking and the role of endowment plus relevant cultural backgrounds, the answerers were grouped, and each segment could be identified. Finally, this segmentation could be correlated with behaviour in risk decisions. Here, the Allais situation was used testing respondent behaviour in risky decision-making on behalf of others. This paper used the validated DOSPERT Scale, measuring risk perceptions and risk preferences of international students (n=244). The used survey contained different risk attitudes depending on decision making and involved the following criteria: Ethical, Financial, Health or Safety, Recreational, and Social Risks. Applying the DOSPERT Scale, differences were also found between ‘Risk-Taking’, ‘Risk-Perceptions’, and ‘Expected Benefits’. This result can be explained by different risk attitudes particular to people making decisions involving measured risks. At the same time, thanks to the worldwide sample, this paper focused on cultural differences and observed the impact of different cultural backgrounds on risk-taking. Comparing personal traits with Hofstede’s cultural UAI (Uncertainty Avoidance Index) helped us understand deeper cultural influences. The sample was widely heterogeneous, which led to some changes in the original research question and provided a new method in the conceptual model. Based on the state of the art, a conceptual model was deduced, three hypotheses were tested, and three various segments were identified regarding the personal DOSPERT (Domain-Specific Risk-Taking Scale) Risk Preferences. In the second part of the paper, Personal Risk Preferences were connected and tested not only using the national culture background but also attitudes towards the endowment. Although there was no significant correlation between the distribution of risk perception, the styles of each role might show how the cultural heritage impacts various decisions and risk levels.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

risk; management; cultural difference; principal-agent problem; ownership

PL

ryzyko; zarządzanie; różnica kulturowa; problem główny-agent; własność

• Wydawca: Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Białostockiej
• Czasopismo: Engineering Management in Production and Services
• Rocznik: 2018
• Tom: Vol. 10, no. 4
• Strony: 7--20
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 38 poz., rys, tab.

Twórcy

autor

Kolnhofer-Derecskei A.

• Obuda University, Hungary

Bibliografia

• Andreoni, J., & Sprenger, C. (2010). Certain and Uncertain Utility. The Allais Paradox and Five Decision Theory Phenomena. Levine’s Working Paper Archive 926159295. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/83da/ed55d89ad8d0b94ac72e509dbb118983-f069.pdf
• Baillon, A., Bleichrodt, H., & Liu, N. (2016). Group Decision rules and group rationality under risk. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 52(2), 99-116.
• Bakacsi, Gy. (2015). Valtozo vezetesi paradigma – valtozo megbizo ugynok problema? [Changing leader-paradigm – changing principal-agent problem?]. In Gy. Bakacsi & K. Balaton (Eds.), Vezetes es szervezet tarsadalmi kontextusban: Tanulmanyok Dobak Miklos 60. szuletesnapja tiszteletere (pp. 29-54). Budapest, Hungary: Akademiai Press.
• Birnbaum, M.H. (2008). New Paradoxes of Risky Decision Making. Psychological Review, 115(2), 463-501.
• Blais, A.R., & Weber, E.U. (2006). A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) scale for adult populations. Judgement and Decision Making, 11(1), 33-47.
• Calabuig, V., Fatas, E., Olcina, G., & Rodriguez-Lara, I. (2016). Carry a big stick, or no stick at all Punishment and endowment heterogeneity in the trust game. Journal of Economic Psychology, 157, 153-171.
• Camerer, C. (1998). Bounded Rationality in Individual Decision Making. Experimental Economics, 1, 163-183.
• Centre for Decision Sciences, DOSPERT ORG. Retrieved from https://sites.google.com/a/decisionsciences. columbia.edu/dospert/
• Chang, S., Dee, T.S., Tse, C.W., & Yu, L. (2016). Be a Good Samaritan to a Good Samaritan: Field evidence of other-regarding preferences in China. China Economic Review, 41, 23-33. Doi: 10.1016/j. chieco.2016.08.007
• Dawes, M.R., & Thaler, R. (1988). Anomalies Cooperation. Journal of Economics Perspectives, 2(3), 187-197.
• Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., Sunde, U., Schupp, J., & Wagner., G. (2011). Individual risk attitudes: Measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. Journal of the European Economic Association, 9(3), 522-550.
• Falk, A., Fehr, E., & Fishbacher, U. (2008). Testing theories of fairness – Intentions matter. Games and Economic Behavior, 62(1), 287-303.
• Farago, K., & Kiss, O. (2005). Risk-taking Entreprenuers: the Role of Uncertainty, Stake and Framing. Magyar Pszichologiai Szemle, LX(1), 203-223.
• Farago, K. (2005). A kockazatvallalas vizsgalata terepkiserletekben. Magyar Pszichologiai Szemle, LX(3), 343370.
• Farago, K. (2008). Siker, kockazatvallalas es versenges szervezetekben. Alkalmazott Pszichologia, 1-2, 7-29.
• Farago, K. (2008). The Effect of Accumulated Resources on Risk Taking in Memory of Ferenc Merei. Magyar Pszichologiai Szemle, 63(4), 651-675.
• Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2003). The nature of human altruism. Nature, 425, 785-791. Doi: 10.1038/ nature02043
• Ferreira, M. (2018). Risk Seeker or Risk Averse? CrossCountry Differences in Risk Attitudes Towards Financial Investment. In A. Samson (Ed.), The Behavioral Economics Guide 2018. Retrieved from http://www.behavioraleconomics.com
• Guiso, L., & Paiella, M. (2008). Risk Aversion, Wealth, and Background Risk. Journal of the European Economic Association, 6(6), 1109-1150.
• Hanoch, Y., Johnson, J.G., Wilke, A. (2006). Domain Specificity in Experimental Measures and Participant Recruitment An Application to Risk-Taking Behavior. Psychological Sciences, 17(4), 300-306.
• Hertvig, R., Barron, G., Weber, E.U., & Erev, I. (2004). Decisions From Experience and the Effect of Rare Events in Risky Choice. Psychological Sciences, 15(8), 534-539.
• Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work related values. London, United Kingdom: Sage.
• Hofstede, G. (2018). The Hofstede Centre. Retrieved from https://geert-hofstede.com
• Hsee, C.K., & Weber, E.U. (1999). Cross-National Differences in Risk Preference and Lay Predictions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12, 165-179.
• Kahneman, D. (2013). Thinking fast and slow. New York, United States: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L., & Thaler, R. (1991). The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 193-206.
• Kolnhofer-Derecskei, A. (2017). The Indifferent, the Good Samaritan, the Brave and the Agent in Allais Paradox situation – or How Endowment Effect Influences Our Decision in Case of Allais Paradox? Organizacija, 50(4), 299-313.
• Kolnhofer-Derecskei, A., & Nagy, V. (2016). Under Risk. In R. Reicher (Ed.), Proceedings of FIKUSZ ’16 Symposium for Young Researchers (pp. 161-172). Retrieved from https://kgk.uni-obuda.hu/sites/default/files /16_De-rec-skei_Nagy.pdf
• Luigi, G., & Paiella, M. (2008). Risk aversion, wealth, and background risk. Journal of the European Economic Association, 6(6), 1109-1150.
• Morris, M.W., Leung, K., Ames, D., Lickel, B. (1999). Views from Inside and Outside: Integrating Emic and Etic Insights about Culture and Justice Judgment. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 781796.
• Palmer, C.J., Paton, B., Ngo, T.T., Thomson, R.H., Hohwy, J., & Miller, S.M. (2013). Individual differences in Moral Behaviour: A Role for Response to Risk and Uncertainty? Neuroethics, 6, 91-103.
• Radnoti, I. (2010), A kockazatvallalasi szandek merese. XXI. Szazad – Tudomanyos Kozlemenyek, 24, 31-54.
• Simon, H. (1978). Rational Decision-Making in Business Organization. Nobel Memorial Lecture, 8th of December 1978.
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
• Vasvari, T. (2015). Risk. Risk Perception, Risk Management – a Review of the Literature. Public Finance Quarterly, 60(1), 29-48.
• Wang, M., Oliver, M., & Hens, R. (2017). The impact of culture on loss aversion. Behavioral Decision Making, 30(2), 270-281.
• Weber, E.U., Blais, A.R., & Betz, N. (2002). A domainspecific risk attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15, 263-290.
• Weber, E.U., & Hsee, C. (1998). Cross Cultured Differences in Risk Perception, but Cross Cultural Similarities in Attitudes Towards Perceived Risk. Management Science, 44(9), 1205-1217.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu w ramach umowy 509/P-DUN/2018 ze środków MNiSW przeznaczonych na działalność upowszechniającą naukę (2019).