Joint vs. Individual performance in a dynamic choice problem

被引:0
|
作者
Miller, Logan [1 ]
Rholes, Ryan [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Arkansas, Walton Coll Business, Dept Econ, Fayetteville, AR USA
[2] Univ Oxford, Dept Econ, 10 Manor Rd, Oxford, Oxon, England
关键词
Individual behavior; Group behavior; Intertemporal household choice; Life cycle models and saving; Collaborative consumption; Consumption; Saving; Wealth; PERMANENT INCOME HYPOTHESIS; DECISION-MAKING; 2; HEADS; CONSUMPTION; UNCERTAINTY; POVERTY; TEAM; RISK; PLAY;
D O I
10.1016/j.jebo.2023.05.022
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
This paper compares the relative ability of individuals and pairs to solve a finite, stochas-tic lifecycle problem that requires borrowing and saving to achieve the rational bench-mark. We find that pairs significantly outperform individuals, especially when allowing subjects to account for past mistakes along conditionally-optimal consumption paths. Joint decision-makers out-earn individuals by about 23%. Though pairs and individuals both overreact to income and wealth balances, these distortions are twice as large for indi-viduals. Analyzing chat data reveals that pairs bargain to balance idiosyncratic consump-tion preferences, which reduces consumption errors. We estimate consumption heuristics at the observation level and study their dynamics. We show that about half our subjects (or pairs of subjects) stick to heuristics for the majority of the experiment. These 'stable' subjects significantly outperform their 'unstable' counterparts in the dynamic optimization task. Finally, we provide suggestive evidence that subjects who have a nuanced view of debt outperform subjects who think of debt as always bad, even after controlling for cog-nitive ability.& COPY; 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ )
引用
收藏
页码:897 / 934
页数:38
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Patient choice vs. finite resources
    Kartha, V
    Barker, K
    Mackenzie, I
    ANAESTHESIA, 2005, 60 (11) : 1149 - 1149
  • [22] Promoter choice: Selection vs. rejection
    Mehrotra, Rajesh
    Loake, Gary
    Mehrotra, Sandhya
    GENE REPORTS, 2018, 13 : 38 - 41
  • [23] RISK CHOICE: INTENTION VS. ACTION
    Kornienko, Dmitry S.
    Baleva, Milena V.
    Yachmeneva, Nadezhda P.
    EKSPERIMENTALNAYA PSIKHOLOGIYA, 2023, 16 (01): : 87 - 100
  • [24] Evaluation of performance and perceptions of electronic vs. paper multiple-choice exams
    Washburn, Shannon
    Herman, James
    Stewart, Randolph
    ADVANCES IN PHYSIOLOGY EDUCATION, 2017, 41 (04) : 548 - 555
  • [25] CONGRESSIONAL INQUISITION VS. INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY
    Coudert, Frederic R.
    VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW, 1929, 15 (06) : 537 - 552
  • [26] Prosumers: Grid vs. individual storage
    Bravo-Melgarejo, Sai
    Haritchabalet, Carole
    ENERGY ECONOMICS, 2025, 141
  • [27] Modeling SMEs' Choice of Foreign Market Entry: Joint Venture vs. Wholly Owned Venture
    Zhao, Xuemin
    Decker, Reinhold
    OPERATIONS RESEARCH PROCEEDINGS 2004, 2005, : 221 - 229
  • [28] Individual Responsibility vs. System Failure
    Flaskerud, Jacquelyn H.
    ISSUES IN MENTAL HEALTH NURSING, 2018, 39 (03) : 275 - 278
  • [29] The impact of gestation housing system (individual vs. group) on the reproductive performance of sows
    Laudwig, A. L.
    Ellis, M.
    Gaines, A. M.
    Peterson, B. A.
    JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, 2016, 94 : 2 - 3
  • [30] Predicting the defensive performance of individual players in one vs. one soccer games
    Wilson, Robbie S.
    Smith, Nicholas M. A.
    Pereira Santiago, Paulo Roberto
    Camata, Thiago
    Ramos, Solange de Paula
    Caetano, Fabio Giuliano
    Cunha, Sergio Augusto
    Sandes de Souza, Ana Paula
    Moura, Felipe Arruda
    PLOS ONE, 2018, 13 (12):