Social Comparisons are Associated with Poorer and Riskier Financial Decision Making, no Matter whether Encounters are Sporadic or Repeated

  1. Alfonso Barrós-Loscertales 1
  2. Antonio M. Espín 2
  3. José C. Perales 3
  1. 1 Universitat Jaume I (Spain)
  2. 2 Middlesex University Business School (UK)
  3. 3 Universidad de Granada (Spain)
Mostrar afiliaciones +
Revista:
The Spanish Journal of Psychology

ISSN: 1138-7416

Año de publicación: 2016

Volumen: 19

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.1017/SJP.2016.55 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: The Spanish Journal of Psychology

Resumen

Previous research suggests that social comparisons affect decision making under uncertainty. However, the role of the length of the social interaction for this relationship remains unknown. This experiment tests the effect of social comparisons on financial risk taking and how this effect is modulated by whether social encounters are sporadic or repeated. Participants carried out a computer task consisting of a series of binary choices between lotteries of varying profitability and risk, with real monetary stakes. After each decision, participants could compare their own payoff to that of a counterpart who made the same decision at the same time and whose choices/earnings did not affect the participants’ earnings. The design comprised three between-subjects treatments which differed in the nature of the social interaction: participants were informed that they would be matched with either (a) a different participant in each trial, (b) the same participant across all trials, or (c) a “virtual participant”, i.e., a computer algorithm. Compared to the non-social condition (c), subjects in both social conditions (a and b) chose lotteries with lower expected value (z = –3.10, p < .01) and higher outcome variance (z = 2.13, p = .03). However, no differences were found between the two social conditions (z = 1.15, p = .25 and z = 0.35, p = .73, respectively). These results indicate that social comparison information per se leads to poorer and riskier financial decisions, irrespective of whether or not the referent other is encountered repeatedly.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Ai C., & Norton E. C. (2003). Interaction terms in logit and probit models. Economics Letters, 80(1), 123–129. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1765(03)00032-6
  • Allison P. D. (2009). Fixed effects regression models (Series: Quantitative applications in the social sciences, Vol. 160). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE publications.
  • Bault N., Coricelli G., & Rustichini A. (2008). Interdependent utilities: How social ranking affects choice behavior. PloS One, 3, e3477. http://dx.doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0003477
  • Bault N., Joffily M., Rustichini A., & Coricelli G. (2011). Medial prefrontal cortex and striatum mediate the influence of social comparison on the decision process. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 16044–16049. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.1100892108
  • Brañas-Garza P., Espín A. M., Exadaktylos F., & Herrmann B. (2014). Fair and unfair punishers coexist in the Ultimatum Game. Scientific Reports, 4, 6025. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep06025
  • Camille N., Coricelli G., Sallet J., Pradat-Diehl P., Duhamel J. R., & Sirigu A. (2004). The involvement of the orbitofrontal cortex in the experience of regret. Science, 304, 1167–1170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/ science.1094550
  • Cikara M., Botvinick M. M., & Fiske S. T. (2011). Us versus them social identity shapes neural responses to intergroup competition and harm. Psychological Science, 22, 306–313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0956797610397667
  • Clark A. E., Frijters P., & Shields M. A. (2008). Relative income, happiness, and utility: An explanation for the Easterlin paradox and other puzzles. Journal of Economic Literature, 46(1), 95–144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/ jel.46.1.95
  • Cobo-Reyes R., & Jiménez N. (2012). The dark side of friendship: ‘Envy’. Experimental Economics, 15, 547–570. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10683-012-9313-0
  • Corgnet B., Espín A. M., & Hernán-González R. (2015). The cognitive basis of social behavior: Cognitive reflection overrides antisocial but not always prosocial motives. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 9, 287. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00287
  • Dal Bó P. (2005). Cooperation under the shadow of the future: Experimental evidence from infinitely repeated games. American Economic Review, 95, 1591–1604. http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR34573.v1
  • Delgado M. R., Schotter A., Ozbay E. Y., & Phelps E. A. (2008). Understanding overbidding: Using the neural circuitry of reward to design economic auctions. Science, 321, 1849–1852. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science. 1158860
  • Dohmen T., Falk A., Fliessbach K., Sunde U., & Weber B. (2011). Relative versus absolute income, joy of winning, and gender: Brain imaging evidence. Journal of Public Economics, 95, 279–285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. jpubeco.2010.11.025
  • Dvash J., Gilam G., Ben-Ze’ev A., Hendler T., & Shamay-Tsoory S. G. (2010). The envious brain: The neural basis of social comparison. Human Brain Mapping, 31, 1741–1750. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ hbm.20972
  • Edwards J. R. (2001). Ten difference score myths. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 265–287. http://dx. doi.org/10.1177/109442810143005
  • Espín A. M., Brañas-Garza P., Herrmann B., & Gamella J. F. (2012). Patient and impatient punishers of free-riders. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 279, 4923–4928. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.2043
  • Fareri D. S., & Delgado M. R. (2014). Differential reward responses during competition against in-and out-of-network others. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9, 412–420. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ scan/nst006
  • Fehr E., & Fischbacher U. (2003). The nature of human altruism. Nature, 425, 785–791. http://dx.doi. org/10.1038/nature02043
  • Fehr E., & Schmidt K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 817–868. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/ 003355399556151
  • Festinger L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140. http://dx.doi. org/10.1177/001872675400700202
  • Fliessbach K., Weber B., Trautner P., Dohmen T., Sunde U., Elger C. E., & Falk A. (2007). Social comparison affects reward-related brain activity in the human ventral striatum. Science, 318, 1305–1308. http://dx.doi. org/10.1126/science.1145876
  • Gächter S., Nosenzo D., & Sefton M. (2012). The impact of social comparisons on reciprocity. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 114, 1346–1367. http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-9442.2012.01730.x
  • Gali J. (1994). Keeping up with the Joneses: Consumption externalities, portfolio choice, and asset prices. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 26(1), 1–8. http://dx.doi. org/10.2307/2078030
  • Greiner B. (2004). An online recruitment system for economic experiments. In K. Kremer & V. Macho (Eds.), Forschung und Wissenschaftliches Rechnen GWDG Bericht 63 [Research and Scientific Computation GWDG Report 63]. Göttingen, Germany: Gesellschaft für Wissenschaftliche Datenverarbeitung.
  • Herrmann B., & Orzen H. (2008). The appearance of homo rivalis: Social preferences and the nature of rent seeking. CeDEx Discussion Paper Series (#2008–10). Nottingham, UK: University of Nottingham. Retrieved from http://nottingham.ac.uk/cedex/documents/ papers/2008-10.pdf
  • Loewenstein G. F., Thompson L., & Bazerman M. H. (1989). Social utility and decision making in interpersonal contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 426–441. http://dx.doi. org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.3.426
  • Lugovskyy V., Puzzello D., & Tucker S. (2010). An experimental investigation of overdissipation in the all pay auction. European Economic Review, 54, 974–997. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2010.02.006
  • Luttmer E. F. P. (2005). Neighbors as negatives: Relative earnings and well-being. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120, 963–1002. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ qje/120.3.963
  • Rand D. G., Greene J. D., & Nowak M. A. (2012). Spontaneous giving and calculated greed. Nature, 489, 427–430. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature11467
  • Sheremeta R. M. (2010). Experimental comparison of multi-stage and one-stage contests. Games and Economic Behavior, 68, 731–747. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. geb.2009.08.001
  • Sheremeta R. M. (2013). Overbidding and heterogeneous behavior in contest experiments. Journal of Economic Surveys, 27, 491–514. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ joes.12022
  • Van den Bos W., Golka P. J. M., Effelsberg D., & McClure S. M. (2013). Pyrrhic victories: The need for social status drives costly competitive behavior. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 7, 189. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/ fnins.2013.00189
  • Van den Bos W., Li J., Lau T., Maskin E., Cohen J. D., Montague P. R., & McClure S. M. (2008). The value of victory: Social origins of the winner’s curse in common value auctions. Judgment and Decision Making, 3, 483.
  • Van den Bos W., Talwar A., & McClure S. M. (2013). Neural correlates of reinforcement learning and social preferences in competitive bidding. The Journal of Neuroscience, 33, 2137–2146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1523/ JNEUROSCI.3095-12.2013
  • Van Duijvenvoorde A. C. K., Huizenga H. M., Somerville L. H., Delgado M. R., Powers A., Weeda W. D., … Figner B. (2015). Neural correlates of expected risks and returns in risky choice across development. The Journal of Neuroscience, 35, 1549–1560. http://dx.doi. org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1924-14.2015
  • Veblen T. (1899). The theory of the leisure class. New York, NY: The New American Library.
  • Weber E. U., Shafir S., & Blais A. R. (2004). Predicting risk sensitivity in humans and lower animals: Risk as variance or coefficient of variation. Psychological Review, 111, 430–445. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X. 111.2.430
  • Webster D. M., & Kruglanski A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1049–1062. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1049
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet