Social Reference Points and Risk Taking

References

• Abeler J, Falk A, Goette L, Huffman D (2011) Reference points and effort provision. Amer. Econom. Rev. 101(2):470–492.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Adams JS (1963) Toward an understanding of inequity. J. Abnormal Soc. Psych. 67(5):422–436.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Allen EJ, Dechow PM, Pope DG, Wu G (2017) Reference-dependent preferences: Evidence from marathon runners. Management Sci. 63(6):1657–1672.Link, Google Scholar
• Almås I, Cappelen A, Tungodden B (2020) Cutthroat capitalism vs. cuddly socialism: Are Americans more meritocratic and efficiency-seeking than Scandinavians? J. Political Econom. 128(5):1753–1788.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andreoni J, Harbaugh WT (2009) Unexpected utility: Experimental tests of five key questions about preferences over risk. Working paper, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
• Appadurai A (2004) The capacity to aspire: Culture and the terms of recognition. Rao V, Walton M, eds. Culture and Public Action (Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA), 59–84.Google Scholar
• Bartling B, Brandes L, Schunk D (2015) Expectations as reference points: Field evidence from professional soccer. Management Sci. 61(11):2646–2661.Link, Google Scholar
• Bénabou R (2017) Comment on “understanding the Great Gatsby curve. NBER Macroeconomic Annual 32:394–406.Google Scholar
• Bénabou R, Tirole J (2006) Belief in a just world and redistributive politics. Quart. J. Econom. 121(2):699–746.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benartzi S, Thaler RH (1995) Myopic loss aversion and the equity premium puzzle. Quart. J. Econom. 110(1):73–92.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bolton GE, Ockenfels A (2000) ERC: A theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. Amer. Econom. Rev. 90(1):166–193.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Breza E, Kaur S, Shamdasani Y (2018) The morale effects of pay inequality. Quart. J. Econom. 133(2):611–663.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brock JM, Lange A, Ozbay EY (2013) Dictating the risk: Experimental evidence on giving in risky environments. Amer. Econom. Rev. 103(1):415–437.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brock JM, Lange A, Ozbay EY (2016) Dictating the risk: Experimental evidence on giving in risky environments. [reply] Amer. Econom. Rev. 106(3):840–842.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bursztyn L, Ederer F, Ferman B, Yuchtman N (2014) Understanding mechanisms underlying peer effects: Evidence from a field experiment on financial decisions. Econometrica 82(4):1273–1301.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Camerer CF, Babcock L, Loewenstein G, Thaler RH (1997) Labor supply of New York City cabdrivers: One day at a time. Quart. J. Econom. 112(2):407–441.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Card D, Mas A, Moretti E, Saez E (2012) Inequality at work: The effect of peer salaries on job satisfaction. Amer. Econom. Rev. 102(6):2981–3003.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cerulli-Harms A, Goette L, Sprenger C (2019) Randomizing endowments: An experimental study of rational expectations and reference-dependent preferences. Amer. Econom. J. Microeconomics 11(1):185–207.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charness G, Kuhn P (2007) Does pay inequality affect worker effort? Experimental evidence. J. Labor Econom. 25(4):693–723.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen Y, Lu F, Zhang J (2017) Social comparisons, status and driving behavior. J. Public Econom. 155:11–20.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohn A, Fehr E, Herrmann B, Schneider F (2014) Social comparison and effort provision: Evidence from a field experiment. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 12(4):877–898.Crossref, Google Scholar
• DellaVigna S, Lindner A, Reizer B, Schmieder JF (2017) Reference-dependent job search: Evidence from Hungary. Quart. J. Econom. 132(4):1969–2018.Crossref, Google Scholar
• de Quidt J, Haushofer J, Roth C (2018) Measuring and bounding experimenter demand. Amer. Econom. Rev. 108(11):3266–3302.Crossref, Google Scholar
• de Quidt J, Vesterlund L, Wilson AJ (2019) Experimenter demand effects. Schram A, Ule A, eds. Handbook of Research Methods and Applications in Experimental Economics (Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, MA), 384–400.Google Scholar
• Duflo E, Saez E (2002) Participation and investment decisions in a retirement plan: The influence of colleagues’ choices. J. Public Econom. 85(1):121–148.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ebert S (2015) On skewed risks in economic models and experiments. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 112:85–97.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Falk A, Fischbacher U (2006) A theory of reciprocity. Games Econom. Behav. 54(2):293–315.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Falk A, Ichino A (2006) Clean evidence on peer effects. J. Labor Econom. 24(1):39–57.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Falk A, Knell M (2004) Choosing the Joneses: Endogenous goals and reference standards. Scandinavian J. Econom. 106(3):417–435.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Goette L (2007) Work more if wages are high? Evidence from a randomized field experiment. Amer. Econom. Rev. 97(1):298–317.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Schmidt KM (1999) A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quart. J. Econom. 114(3):817–868.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Festinger L (1954) A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations 7(2):117–140.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fischbacher U (2007) z-tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experiment. Econom. 10(2):171–178.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fliessbach K, Weber B, Trautner P, Dohmen T, Sunde U, Elger CE, Falk A (2007) Social comparison affects reward-related brain activity in the human ventral striatum. Sci. 318(5854):1305–1308.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Frank RH (1985a) Choosing the Right Pond: Human Behavior and the Quest for Status (Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
• Frank RH (1985b) The demand for unobservable and other nonpositional goods. Amer. Econom. Rev. 75(1):101–116.Google Scholar
• Fudenberg D, Levine DK, Maniadis Z (2012) On the robustness of anchoring effects in WTP and WTA experiments. Amer. Econom. J. Microeconomics 4(2):131–145.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gächter S, Huang L, Sefton M (2018) Disappointment aversion and social comparisons in a real-effort competition. Econom. Inquiry 56(3):1512–1525.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Genicot G, Ray D (2017) Aspirations and inequality. Econometrica 85(2):489–519.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gneezy U, Potters J (1997) An experiment on risk taking and evaluation periods. Quart. J. Econom. 112(2):631–645.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gneezy U, Goette L, Sprenger C, Zimmermann F (2017) The limits of expectations-based reference dependence. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 15(4):861–876.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greiner B (2004) An online recruitment system for economic experiments. Forschung Wissenschaftliches Rechnen 63:79–93.Google Scholar
• Heffetz O (2021) Are reference points merely lagged beliefs over probabilities? J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 181:252–269.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heffetz O, Frank RH (2011) Preferences for status: Evidence and economic implications. Benhabib J, Bisin A, Jackson M, eds. Handbook of Social Economics (Elsevier B.V.), 69–92.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heffetz O, List JA (2014) Is the endowment effect an expectations effect? J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 12(5):1396–1422.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heidhues P, Kőszegi B (2008) Competition and price variation when consumers are loss averse. Amer. Econom. Rev. 98(4):1245–1268.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Herweg F, Müller D, Weinschenk P (2010) Binary payment schemes: Moral hazard and loss aversion. Amer. Econom. Rev. 100(5):2451–2477.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huberman BA, Loch CH, Onculer A (2004) Status as a valued resource. Soc. Psych. Quart. 67(1):103–114.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–292.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Knetsch JL, Thaler RH (1990) Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. J. Political Econom. 98(6):1325–1348.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kőszegi B, Rabin M (2006) A model of reference-dependent preferences. Quart. J. Econom. 121(4):1133–1165.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krawczyk M, Le Lec F (2016) Dictating the risk: Experimental evidence on giving in risky environments. [comment] Amer. Econom. Rev. 106(3):836–839.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kuhn P, Kooreman P, Soetevent AR, Kapteyn A (2011) The effects of lottery prizes on winners and their neighbors: Evidence from the Dutch postcode lottery. Amer. Econom. Rev. 101(5):2226–2247.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Maniadis Z, Tufano F, List JA (2014) One swallow doesn’t make a summer: New evidence on anchoring effects. Amer. Econom. Rev. 104(1):277–290.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mas A, Moretti E (2009) Peers at work. Amer. Econom. Rev. 99(1):112–145.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Odean T (1998) Are investors reluctant to realize their losses? J. Finance 53(5):1775–1798.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Post T, Van den Assem MJ, Baltussen G, Thaler RH (2008) Deal or no deal? Decision making under risk in a large-payoff game show. Amer. Econom. Rev. 98(1):38–71.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rabin M (2000) Risk aversion and expected-utility theory: A calibration theorem. Econometrica 68(5):1281–1292.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ray D (2006) Aspirations, poverty, and economic change. Banerjee AV, Benabou R, Mookherjee D, eds. Understanding Poverty (Oxford University Press, New York), 409–421.Google Scholar
• Rees-Jones A (2018) Quantifying loss-averse tax manipulation. Rev. Econom. Stud. 85(2):1251–1278.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sacerdote B (2001) Peer effects with random assignment: Results for Dartmouth roommates. Quart. J. Econom. 116(2):681–704.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sprenger C (2015) An endowment effect for risk: Experimental tests of stochastic reference points. J. Political Econom. 123(6):1456–1499.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thaler RH, Johnson EJ (1990) Gambling with the house money and trying to break even: The effects of prior outcomes on risky choice. Management Sci. 36(6):643–660.Link, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D (1992) Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertainty 5(4):297–323.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Veblen T (1899) The Theory of the Leisure Class (Macmillan, New York).Google Scholar