Decisions under uncertainty in social contexts

Abstract

This paper theoretically and experimentally studies decision-making in risky and social environments. We explore the interdependence of individual risk attitudes and social preferences in the form of inequality aversion as two decisive behavioral determinants in such contexts. Our model and the data demonstrate that individual risk aversion is attenuated when lagging behind peers, whereas it is amplified under favorable income inequality. Moreover, people's choices are not only contextdependent, but are sensitive to their degree of inequality aversion. The majority of our experimental findings cannot be rationalized by rank-dependent utility models or cumulative prospect theory. Our results contribute to the basic understanding of the underlying motives of private households' saving decisions, employees' careertrack choices or charitable giving under uncertainty.

An Improved Lotka–Volterra Model Using Quantum Game Theory

“…Furthermore, the scenario simulation results reveal that the entanglement parameter for the evolutionary trajectories of player population dynamics, determine the stability conditions for the coexistence equilibrium (Figures 4 and 5). As Müller and Rau [46] affirmed, human decisions are interdependent mainly because human decisions are determined through different potential and non-potential conflicting motives and occur in an uncertain social environment. Importantly, our proposed model can be used to not only quantify the entanglement intensity but also delineate disparities in impacts of entanglement intensity on game outcomes in combination with different initial strategies.…”

Solution of an imperfect‐quality EOQ model with backorder under fuzzy lock leadership game approach

“…11 Decision under uncertainty in a social context was analyzed by Muller and Rau. 12 Very recent cooperative games with prospect theory have also been discussed by Metzger and Rieger. 13 A firm's mission model with the competition of talented leaders is considered intelligently.…”

“…Therefore employing Section 2.3, we get = = 11 12 13 21 22 23 31 32 33 . Therefore, utilizing (12) and (13)…”

Design for Societal Resilience: The Risk Evaluation Diversity-Aiding Approach (RED-A)

“…Individual risk-taking decisions depend on the risk and the societal context. A person may avoid, accept, transfer, mitigate or exploit a risk, based on their social context [38]. Kasperson [39] explain that the context a person is in affects their decision and preferences.…”

“…Kasperson [39] explain that the context a person is in affects their decision and preferences. Müller and Rau [38], conclude that the social context, the societal preferences and the level of heterogeneity of a particular risk affects the individual decision whether to take a risk. Therefore, the review focused on heterogeneous risk evaluation approaches.…”