Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-7g5wt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-16T23:10:18.162Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A portmanteau experiment on the relevance of individual decision anomalies for households

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Alistair Munro  and
Danail Popov
Alistair Munro*
Affiliation:
National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies, Tokyo, 106-8677, Japan
Danail Popov
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Royal Holloway College, University of London, Egham, TW20 0EX, UK
*
e-mail: alistair-munro@grips.ac.jp
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although households are responsible for many important decisions, they have rarely been the subject of economics experiments. We conduct a series of linked and incentivized experiments on decision-making, designed to see if the anomalies typically found in individual choice experiments are found when the subjects are couples from long-term relationships. Specifically we investigate the endowment effect, the compromise effect, asymmetric dominance and the ‘more is less’ phenomena. Comparing the results with two control groups (students and non-student individuals) we find broadly the same pattern of anomalies in individuals as we do in couples. Thus behavioural patterns that appear in individual choices appear relevant for decisions made by established couples.

Keywords

Household choiceExperimentCouplesFamilyAnomaliesEndowment effectCompromise effectAsymmetric dominance‘More is less’

JEL classification

D80: General
Type
Original Paper
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , September 2013 , pp. 335 - 348
Copyright
Copyright © 2012 Economic Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Electronic Supplementary Material The online version of this article (doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-012-9340-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The work reported here was financed by the UK’s ESRC, grant no. RES-000-22-2081.

References

Abdellaoui, M., l’Haridon, O., & Paraschiv, C. (2010). Individual vs. collective behavior: an experimental investigation of risk and time preferences in couples, Paris: HEC Groupe.Google Scholar
Ashraf, N. (2009). Spousal control and intra-household decision making: an experimental study in the Philippines. American Economic Review, 99(4), 1245–1277. 10.1257/aer.99.4.1245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateman, I., & Munro, A. (2005). An experiment on risky choice amongst households. Economic Journal, 115(502), C176–C189. 10.1111/j.0013-0133.2005.00986.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateman, I. J., Munro, A., Rhodes, B., Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (1997). A test of the theory of reference-dependent preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 479–505. 10.1162/003355397555262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benartzi, S., & Thaler, R. H. (1995). Myopic loss aversion and the equity premium puzzle. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(1), 73–92. 10.2307/2118511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bone, J., Hey, J., & Suckling, J. (1999). Are groups more or less consistent than individuals?. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 8, 63–81. 10.1023/A:1007764411446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlsson, F., Martinsson, P., & Qin, P. Sutter, M. (2009). Household decision making and the influence of spouses’ income, education, and communist party membership: a field experiment in rural China. IZA Discussion Papers 4139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, M. S., Grote, N. K. Millon, T., & Lerner, M. J. (2003). Close relationships. Handbook of psychology: personality and social psychology, New York: Wiley 447–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cochard, F., & Couprie, H. Hopfensitz, A. (2009). Do spouses cooperate? And if not: why? TSE Working Papers 09-134, Toulouse School of Economics.Google Scholar
Corfman, K. P., & Lehmann, D. R. (1987). Models of cooperative group decision-making and relative influence: an experimental investigation of family purchase decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 1–13. 10.1086/209088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Palma, A., Picard, N., & Ziegelmeyer, A. (2009). Individual and couple decision behavior under risk: evidence on the dynamics of power balance. Theory and Decision, 70(1), 45–64. 10.1007/s11238-009-9179-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doyle, J. R., O’Connor, D. J., Reynolds, G. M., & Bottomley, P. A. (1999). The robustness of the asymmetrically dominated effect: buying frames, phantom alternatives, and in-store purchases. Psychology & Marketing, 16(3), 225–243. 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(199905)16:3<225::AID-MAR3>3.0.CO;2-X3.0.CO;2-X>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsee, C. K. (1998). Less is better: when low-value options are judged more highly than high-value options. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 11, 107–121. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199806)11:2<107::AID-BDM292>3.0.CO;2-Y3.0.CO;2-Y>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, J., Payne, J. W., & Puto, C. (1982). Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 90–98. 10.1086/208899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iversen, V., Jackson, C., Kebede, B., & Munro, A. Verschoor, A. (2006). What’s love got to do with it? An experimental test of household models in East Uganda. Discussion Papers in Economics 06/01, Royal Holloway University of London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–292. 10.2307/1914185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kebede, B., Tarazona, M., Munro, A., & Verschoor, A. (2011). Intra-household efficiency: an experimental study from Ethiopia, Oxford: Centre for the Study of African Economies WPS/2011-01.Google Scholar
Knetsch, J. L., & Sinden, J. A. (1984). Willingness to pay and compensation demanded: experimental evidence of an unexpected disparity in measures of value. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 99, 507–521. 10.2307/1885962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kocher, M. G., & Sutter, M. (2005). The decision maker matters: individual versus group behaviour in experimental beauty contest games. Economic Journal, 115, 200–223. 10.1111/j.1468-0297.2004.00966.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, J. A. (2002). Preference reversals of a different kind: the “More is less” phenomenon. American Economic Review, 92(5), 1636–1643. 10.1257/000282802762024692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, J. A. (2003). Does market experience eliminate market anomalies?. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 41–71. 10.1162/00335530360535144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mani, A. (2008). Mine, yours or ours: the efficiency of household investment decisions—an experimental approach. Working Paper, Warwick University Economics Department.Google Scholar
Messick, D. M. (1999). Alternative logics for decision making in social settings. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 39, 11–28. 10.1016/S0167-2681(99)00023-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, G. C. (1997). Willingness to pay and willingness to accept: some evidence of an endowment effect. Applied Economics, 29, 411–417. 10.1080/000368497326903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, T. L. (1978). Intimacy and reciprocity of exchange: a comparison of spouses and strangers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(1), 72–81. 10.1037/0022-3514.36.1.72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munro, A. (2009). Public policy and bounded rationality: a perspective from behavioural economics, Berlin: Springer 10.1023/b99496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munro, A., & McNally, T. Popov, D. (2008). Taking it in turn: an experimental test of theories of the household. MPRA Paper No. 8976. http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/8976/.Google Scholar
Peters, H. E., Ünür, A. S., Clark, J., & Schulze, W. D. (2004). Free-riding and the provision of public goods in the family: an experimental test of the rotten kid theorem. International Economic Review, 45(1), 283–299. 10.1111/j.1468-2354.2004.00126.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shafir, S., Waite, T. A., & Smith, B. H. (2002). Context-dependent violations of rational choice in Honeybees (Apis Mellilera) and Grey Jays (Perisoreus Canadensis). Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology, 51, 186–187. 10.1007/s00265-001-0420-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonson, I. (1989). Choice based on reasons: the case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(September), 158–174. 10.1086/209205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., McGregor, D. D. Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (2002). The affect heuristic. Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgment, New York: Cambridge University Press 397–420. 10.1017/CBO9780511808098.025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Munro and Popov supplementary material

Supplementary material. Questions from the experiments (from the version given to couples – for individuals ‘we’ becomes ‘I’).
Download Munro and Popov supplementary material(File)
File 63.5 KB