For financial decision-making, people trade off the expected value (return) and the variance (risk) of an option, preferring higher returns to lower ones and lower risks to higher ones. To make decision-makers indifferent between a risky and risk-free option, the expected value of the risky option must exceed the value of the risk-free option by a certain amount—the risk premium. Previous psychological research suggests that similar to risk aversion, people dislike inconsistency in an interaction partner’s behavior. In eight experiments (total N = 2,412) we pitted this inconsistency aversion against the expected returns from interacting with an inconsistent partner. We identified the additional expected return of interacting with an inconsistent partner that must be granted to make decision-makers prefer a more profitable, but inconsistent partner to a consistent, but less profitable one. We locate this inconsistency premium at around 31% of the expected value of the risk-free option.
AlinkA.SchwiedrzikC. M.KohlerA.SingerW.MuckliL. (2010). Stimulus predictability reduces responses in primary visual cortex. The Journal of Neuroscience, 30(8), 2960–2966. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3730-10.2010
2.
ArrowK. J. (1965). The theory of risk aversion. Yrjö Jahnsson Lectures.
3.
BarnesC. M.MorgesonF. P. (2007). Typical performance, maximal performance, and performance variability: Expanding our understanding of how organizations value performance. Human Performance, 20(3), 259–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959280701333289
4.
BernoulliD. (1954). Exposition of a new theory on the measurement of risk. Econometrica, 22(1), 23–36. https://doi.org/10.2307/1909829
BohnetI.GreigF.HerrmannB.ZeckhauserR. (2008). Betrayal aversion: Evidence from Brazil, China, Oman, Switzerland, Turkey, and the United States. American Economic Review, 98(1), 294–310. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.98.1.294
BraemS.TrappS. (2019). Humans show a higher preference for stimuli that are predictive relative to those that are predictable. Psychological Research, 83, 567–573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0935-x
9.
BrandenburgerA. M. (1996). Strategic and structural uncertainty in games. In ZeckhauserR. J.KeeneyR. L.SebeniusJ. K. (Eds.), Wise choices: Decisions, games, and negotiations (pp. 221–232). Harvard Business School Press.
10.
CamererC. F. (2003). Behavioral game theory: Experiments in strategic interaction. Russell Sage Foundation.
11.
ChangY.-H.LevinboimT.MaheswaranR. (2012). The social ultimatum game. In GuyT. V. (Ed.), Intelligent systems reference library. Vol. 28: Decision making with imperfect decision-makers (pp. 135–158). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24647-0_6
12.
CoombsC. H. (1975). Portfolio theory and the measurement of risk. In KaplanM. F.SchwartzS. (Eds.), Human judgment and decision (pp. 63–85). Academic Press.
13.
CoullJ. T.NobreA. C. (1998). Where and when to pay attention: The neural systems for directing attention to spatial locations and to time intervals as revealed by both PET and fMRI. The Journal of Neuroscience, 18(18), 7426–7435. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.18-18-07426.1998
14.
CummingsR. G.HarrisonG. W.RutstromE. E. (1995). Homegrown values and hypothetical surveys: Is the dichotomous choice approach incentive-compatible?American Economic Review, 85, 260–266.
15.
de BerkerA. O.RutledgeR. B.MathysC.MarshallL.CrossG. F.DolanR. J.BestmannS. (2016). Computations of uncertainty mediate acute stress responses in humans. Nature Communications, 7, Article 10996. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms10996
16.
DeNisiA. S.StevensG. E. (1981). Profiles of performance, performance evaluations, and personnel decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 24(3), 592–602. https://doi.org/10.5465/255577
17.
de QuervainD. J.FischbacherU.TreyerV.SchellhammerM.SchnyderU.BuckA.FehrE. (2004). The neural basis of altruistic punishment. Science, 305, 1254–1258. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1100735
18.
DeutscherC.BüschemannA. (2016). Does performance consistency pay off financially for players? Evidence from the Bundesliga. Journal of Sports Economics, 17(1), 27–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527002514521428
19.
DeutscherC.GürtlerO.PrinzJ.WeimarD. (2017). The payoff to consistency in performance. Economic Inquiry, 55(2), 1091–1103. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecin.12415
FehrE.SchmidtK. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3), 817–868. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355399556151
22.
FetchenhauerD.DunningD. (2012). Betrayal aversion versus principled trustfulness—How to explain risk avoidance and risky choices in trust games. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 81(2), 534–541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2011.07.017
23.
FreyR.PedroniA.MataR.RieskampJ.HertwigR. (2017). Risk preference shares the psychometric structure of major psychological traits. Science Advances, 3(10), e1701381. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1701381
24.
GabayA. S.RaduaJ.KemptonM. J.MehtaM. A. (2014). The Ultimatum Game and the brain: A meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 47, 549–558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.10.014
GüthW.KocherM. G. (2014). More than thirty years of ultimatum bargaining experiments: Motives, variations, and a survey of the recent literature. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 108, 396–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2014.06.006
27.
GüthW.SchmittbergerR.SchwarzeB. (1982). An experimental analysis of Ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 3(4), 367–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681(82)90011-7
28.
HeiderF. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. John Wiley.
29.
HeineS. J.ProulxT.VohsK. D. (2006). The meaning maintenance model: On the coherence of social motivations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(2), 88–110. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1002_1
HerryC.BachD. R.EspositoF.Di SalleF.PerrigW. J.SchefflerK.LüthiA.SeifritzE. (2007). Processing of temporal unpredictability in human and animal amygdala. The Journal of Neuroscience, 27(22), 5958–5966. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5218-06.2007
32.
HindsP. J.CarleyK. M.KrackhardtD.WholeyD. (2000). Choosing work group members: Balancing similarity, competence, and familiarity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81(2), 226–251. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1999.2875
33.
HoggM. A. (2000). Subjective uncertainty reduction through self-categorization: A motivational theory of social identity processes. European Review of Social Psychology, 11(1), 223–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792772043000040
34.
JacksonF.NelsonB. D.ProudfitG. H. (2015). In an uncertain world, errors are more aversive: Evidence from the error-related negativity. Emotion, 15(1), 12–16. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000020
35.
JohannessonM.LiljasB.JohanssonP.-O. (1998). An experimental comparison of dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions and real purchase decisions. Applied Economics, 30(5), 643–647. https://doi.org/10.1080/000368498325633
36.
KaganJ. (1972). Motives and development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22(1), 51–66. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032356
37.
KahnemanD. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
38.
KahnemanD.TverskyA. (1979). Prospect Theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
39.
KnightF. H. (1921). Risk, uncertainty, and profit. Houghton Mifflin.
40.
LambooijM. S.HarmsenI. A.VeldwijkJ.de MelkerH.MollemaL.van WeertY. W. M.de WitG. A. (2015). Consistency between stated and revealed preferences: A discrete choice experiment and a behavioural experiment on vaccination behaviour compared. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 15(1), Article 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-015-0010-5
MataR.FreyR.RichterD.SchuppJ.HertwigR. (2018). Risk preference: A view from psychology. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 32(2), 155–172. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.32.2.155
43.
MendesW. B.BlascovichJ.HunterS. B.LickelB.JostJ. T. (2007). Threatened by the unexpected: Physiological responses during social interactions with expectancy-violating partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(4), 698–716. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.698
MontgomeryH.SelartM.GärlingT.LindbergE. (1994). The judgment-choice discrepancy: Noncompatibility or restructuring?Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7(2), 145–155. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.3960070207
46.
NewmanJ.KrzystofiakF.CardyR. (1986). Role of behavior level, behavioral variability, and ratee order in the formation of appraisal ratings. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 7(4), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp0704_3
47.
OosterbeekH.SloofR.van de KuilenG. (2004). Cultural differences in Ultimatum Game experiments: Evidence from a meta-analysis. Experimental Economics, 7, 171–188. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EXEC.0000026978.14316.74
48.
PetersA.McEwenB. S.FristonK. (2017). Uncertainty and stress: Why it causes diseases and how it is mastered by the brain. Progress in Neurobiology, 156, 164–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pneurobio.2017.05.004
49.
PosnerM. I.SnyderC. R.DavidsonB. J. (1980). Attention and the detection of signals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109(2), 160–174. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.109.2.160
50.
PrattJ. W. (1964). Risk aversion in the small and in the large. Econometrica, 31(1–2), 122–136.
51.
PreuschoffK.BossaertsP.QuartzS. R. (2006). Neural differentiation of expected reward and risk in human subcortical structures. Neuron, 51(3), 381–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2006.06.024
52.
ProulxT.InzlichtM.Harmon-JonesE. (2012). Understanding all inconsistency compensation as a palliative response to violated expectations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(5), 285–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.04.002
53.
RempelJ. K.HolmesJ. G.ZannaM. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(1), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.1.95
54.
RiegerM. O.WangM.HensT. (2014). Risk preferences around the world. Management Science, 61(3), 637–648.
55.
SanfeyA. G.RillingJ. K.AronsonJ. A.NystromL. E.CohenJ. D. (2003). The neural basis of economic decision-making in the Ultimatum Game. Science, 300, 1755–1758. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1082976
SchubertL.KörnerA.LindauB.StrackF.TopolinskiS. (2017). Open-minded midwifes, literate butchers, and greedy hooligans: The independent contributions of stereotype valence and consistency on evaluative judgments. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 1723. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01723
SimonH. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884852
61.
SinaceurM.AdamH.van KleefG. A.GalinskyA. D. (2013). The advantages of being unpredictable: How emotional inconsistency extracts concessions in negotiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(3), 498–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.01.007
62.
SteinelW.van BeestI.van DijkE. (2014). Too good to be true: Suspicion-based rejections of high offers. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17(5), 682–698. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430213507323
63.
StrackF.DeutschR. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(3), 220–247. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_1
64.
TassyS.OullierO.ManciniJ.WickerB. (2013). Discrepancies between judgment and choice of action in moral dilemmas. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, Article 250. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00250
65.
TopolinskiS.StrackF. (2015). Corrugator activity confirms immediate negative affect in surprise. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 134. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00134
66.
TrappS.ShenhavA.BitzerS.BarM. (2015). Human preferences are biased towards associative information. Cognition & Emotion, 29(6), 1054–1068. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2014.966064
67.
TverskyA.GriffinD. (1991). Endowment and contrast in judgments of well-being. In StrackF.ArgyleM.SchwarzN. (Eds.), International series in experimental social psychology. Vol. 21: Subjective well-being: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 101–118). Pergamon Press.
68.
WeberE. U.HseeC. (1998). Cross-cultural differences in risk perception, but cross-cultural similarities in attitudes towards perceived risk. Management Science, 44(9), 1205–1217.
69.
WorthenJ. B.CoatsS.McGlynnR. P.RossanoM. J. (2007). Cognitive factors in the prediction of liking of social groups: Prototypes, predictability and familiarity. In ZebowskiJ. A. (Ed.), New research on social perception (pp. 161–179). Nova Science.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
