Does working in the public sector make people more risk averse? Using longitudinal data from the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP, 2008–2018), this study examines whether public sector work experience influences individual risk aversion over time. Fixed-effects and supplementary within-person analyses were conducted to test the socialization hypotheses. The results show that while public sector work experience per se does not affect individuals’ risk aversion once overall work experience is controlled for, an interaction between public and total work experience suggests that risk aversion may gradually increase among long-term public employees. However, the effect size is small, and additional within-person analyses indicate that individual risk aversion remains stable over time. These findings suggest that, rather than being substantially reshaped by public sector workplace context, individual risk aversion functions as a relatively stable personal disposition that interacts modestly with institutional experience. Implications for public employee socialization are discussed.
ArieliS.SagivL.RoccasS. (2020). Values at work: The impact of personal values in organisations. Applied Psychology, 69(2), 230–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12181
2.
AyaitaA.YangP.GülalF. (2019). Where does the good shepherd go? Civic virtue and sorting into public sector employment. German Economic Review, 20(4), e571–e599. https://doi.org/10.1111/geer.12180
3.
BachmanJ. G.SigelmanL.DiamondG. (1987). Self-selection, socialization, and distinctive military values: Attitudes of high school seniors. Armed Forces & Society, 13(2), 169–187.
4.
BardiA.BuchananK. E.GoodwinR.SlabuL.RobinsonM. (2014). Value stability and change during self-chosen life transitions: Self-selection versus socialization effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(1), 131–147. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034818
5.
BartonM. F.WaldronD. G. (1978). Differences in risk preference between the public and private sectors. Human Resource Management, 17(4), 2–4.
6.
BeckerB. W.ConnorP. E. (2005). Self-selection or socialization of public- and private-sector managers?: A cross-cultural values analysis. Journal of Business Research, 58(1), 111–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(02)00481-2
7.
BellanteD.LinkA. N. (1981). Are public sector workers more risk averse than private sector workers?ILR Review, 34(3), 408–412. https://doi.org/10.1177/001979398103400307
8.
BlatterJ.HaverlandM. (2014). Case studies and (causal-) process tracing. In EngeliI.RothmayrC. (Eds.), Comparative policy studies. Conceptual and methodological challenges (pp. 59–84). Palgrave Macmillan.
9.
BlauP. M. (1960). A theory of social integration. American Journal of Sociology, 65, 545–556.
10.
BoninH.DohmenT.FalkA.HuffmanD.SundeU. (2007). Cross-sectional earnings risk and occupational sorting: The role of risk attitudes. Labour Economics, 14(6), 926–937.
BozemanB.KingsleyG. (1998). Risk culture in public and private organizations. Public Administration Review, 58(2), 2.
13.
BucciolA.MiniaciR. (2018). Financial risk propensity, business cycles and perceived risk exposure. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 80(1), 160–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/obes.12193
14.
BullardO.PennerS. (2017). A regulatory-focused perspective on philanthropy: Promotion focus motivates giving to prevention-framed causes. Journal of Business Research, 79, 173–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.06.013
BuurmanM.DelfgaauwJ.DurR.Van Den BosscheS. (2012). Public sector employees: Risk averse and altruistic?Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 83(3), 279–291.
CesarioJ.HigginsE. T.ScholerA. A. (2008). Regulatory fit and persuasion: Basic principles and remaining questions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 444–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00055.x
19.
ChangA. (2024). Risk aversion and public sector employment. Public Administration Review, 84(5), 833–847. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13774
20.
ChatmanJ. A. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3), 459–484.
21.
ChenC.-A.BozemanB. (2012). Organizational risk aversion: Comparing the public and non-profit sectors. Public Management Review, 14, 377–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2011.637406
22.
CohnA.EngelmannJ.FehrE.MaréchalM. A. (2015). Evidence for countercyclical risk aversion: An experiment with financial professionals. American Economic Review, 105(2), 860–885. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20131314
23.
CrosonR.GneezyU. (2009). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(2), 448–474. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.47.2.448
24.
CyertR. M.MarchJ. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Prentice Hall. Prentice Hall/Pearson Education.
25.
De CoomanR.GieterS. D.PepermansR.HermansS.BoisC. D.CaersR.JegersM. (2009). Person–organization fit: Testing socialization and attraction–selection–attrition hypotheses. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 102–107.
26.
DeHart-DavisL. (2009). Green tape and public employee rule abidance: Why organizational rule attributes matter. Public Administration Review, 69(5), 901–910.
27.
DeHart-DavisL. (2007). The unbureaucratic personality. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 892–903.
28.
DessG. G.LumpkinG. T. (2005). The role of entrepreneurial orientation in stimulating effective corporate entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Perspectives, 19(1), 147–156. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2005.15841975
29.
De VriesH.BekkersV.TummersL. (2016). Innovation in the public sector: A systematic review and future research agenda. Public Administration, 94(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12209
30.
DohmenT.FalkA.GolsteynB. H. H.HuffmanD.SundeU. (2017). Risk attitudes across the life course. Econometrics Journal, 127(605), F95–F116. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12322
31.
DohmenT.FalkA.HuffmanD.SundeU.SchuppJ.WagnerG. G. (2011). Individual risk attitudes: Measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. Journal of the European Economic Association, 9(3), 3. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1542-4774.2011.01015.x
32.
DohmenT.LehmannH.PignattiN. (2016). Time-varying individual risk attitudes over the Great Recession: A comparison of Germany and Ukraine. Journal of Comparative Economics, 44(1), 182–200.
33.
DongH.-K. D. (2014). Individual risk preference and sector choice: Are risk-averse individuals more likely to choose careers in the public sector?Administration & Society, 49(8), 1121–1142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399714556500
34.
FinkelsteinL. M.KulasJ. T.DagesK. D. (2003). Age differences in proactive newcomer socialization strategies in two populations. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(4), 473–502.
35.
FudenbergD.LevineD. K. (2011). Risk, delay, and convex self-control costs. American Economic Journal Microeconomics, 3(3), 3–68. https://doi.org/10.1257/mic.3.3.34
36.
GerransP.FaffR.HartnettN. (2015). Individual financial risk tolerance and the global financial crisis. Accounting and Finance, 55(1), 165–185. https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.12053
37.
GuisoL.SapienzaP.ZingalesL. (2018). Time varying risk aversion. Journal of Financial Economics, 128(3), 403–421.
HigginsE. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as A motivational principle. In ZannaP. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 1–46). Academic Press.
HoustonD. J. (2008). Behavior in the public square. In PerryJ.HondeghemA. (Eds.), Motivation in public management: The call of public service (pp. 177–199). Oxford University Press.
43.
HoustonD. J. (2011). Implications of occupational locus and focus for public service motivation: Attitudes toward work motives across nations. Public Administration Review, 71(5), 761–771. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02415.x
44.
HummelR. (Ed.). (1982). The bureaucratic experience: A critique of life in the modern organization (2nd ed.). St. Martin’s Press.
KahnemanD.TverskyA. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263.
47.
KjeldsenA. M.JacobsenC. B. (2013). Public service motivation and employment sector: Attraction or socialization?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(4), 899–926. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mus039
48.
LeonardelliG. J.LakinJ. L.ArkinR. M. (2007). A regulatory focus model of self-evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 1002–1009.
49.
LevinI. P.WellerJ. A.PedersonA. A.HarshmanL. A. (2007). Age-related differences in adaptive decision making: Sensitivity to expected value in risky choice. Judgment and Decision Making, 2, 225–233.
50.
LilleholtL. (2019). Cognitive ability and risk aversion: A systematic review and meta analysis. Judgment and Decision Making, 14(3), 234–279. Article 3.
51.
LipskyM. (Ed.). (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services (30th anniversary expand ed.). Russell Sage Foundation.
52.
MeierK. J.FaveroN.ZhuL. (2015). Performance gaps and managerial decisions: A Bayesian decision theory of managerial action. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(4), 1221–1246. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu054
53.
MertonR. K. (1940). Bureaucratic structure and personality. Social Forces, 18(4), 560–568.
54.
MoysonS.RaaphorstN.GroeneveldS.Van de WalleS. (2018). Organizational socialization in public administration research: A systematic review and directions for future research. American Review of Public Administration, 48(6), 610–627. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074017696160
Nicholson-CrottyS.Nicholson-CrottyJ.WebeckS. (2019). Are public managers more risk averse? Framing effects and status quo bias across the sectors. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, 2(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.21.35
57.
Nicholson-CrottyS.Nicholson-CrottyJ.FernandezS. (2017). Performance and management in the public sector: Testing a model of relative risk aversion. Public Administration Review, 77(4), 603–614. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12619
58.
NuttP. C. (2006). Comparing public and private sector decision-making practices. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(2), 289–318. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui041
59.
OberfieldZ. W. (2019). Change and stability in public workforce development: A 10-year study of new officers in an urban police department. Public Management Review, 21(12), 1753–1774.
60.
O’LearyR. (2010). Guerrilla employees: Should managers nurture, tolerate, or terminate them?Public Administration Review, 70(1), 8–19.
61.
O’ReillyC. A.ChatmanJ.CaldwellD. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: a profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit on JSTOR. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 487–516.
62.
PerloffJ. M. (Ed.). (2014). Microeconomics (7th ed.). Pearson.
PhamM. T.HigginsE. T. (2005). Promotion and prevention in consumer decision making: State of the art and theoretical propositions. In S. Ratneshwar & D. G. Mick (Eds.), Inside consumption: Consumer motives, goals, and desires (pp. 8–43). Routledge.
65.
PortilloS.DeHart-DavisL. (2009). Gender and organizational rule abidance. Public Administration Review, 69(2), 339–347.
66.
RobertsB. W. (2009). Back to the future: Personality and assessment and personality development. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(2), 137–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.12.015
67.
RogersE. M. (Ed.). (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). The Free Press.
SimonH. (1997). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organizations. Free Press.
70.
StefánssonH. O.BradleyR. (2019). What is risk aversion?British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 70(1), 77–102.
71.
TangsgaardE. R. (2021). How do public service professionals behave in risky situations? The importance of organizational culture. American Review of Public Administration, 51(7), 492–508. https://doi.org/10.1177/02750740211010348
72.
TangsgaardE. R. (2025). Does a managerial focus on risk affect the risk perceptions of frontline workers? Evidence from three survey experiments. International Public Management Journal, 28(2), 258–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2024.2358017
73.
TepeM.ProkopC. (2018). Are future bureaucrats more risk averse? The effect of studying public administration and PSM on risk preferences. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(2), 182–196. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy007
74.
Van Der WalZ.De GraafG.LasthuizenK. (2008). What’s valued most? A comparative empirical study on the differences and similarities between the organizational values of the public and private sector. Public Administration, 86(2), 465–482. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2008.00719.x
75.
Van MaanenJ. (1975). Police socialization: A longitudinal examination of job attitudes in an urban police department. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20(2), 207–228.
76.
Von NeumannJ.MorgensternO. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University Press.
77.
WagnerG. G.FrickJ. R.SchuppJ. (2007). The German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP) - evolution, scope and enhancements. SSRN Electronic Journal, 127(1), 1.
WeberE. U.BlaisA.BetzN. E. (2002). A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15(4), 263–290. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.414
81.
WeißmüllerK. S. (2022). Publicness and micro-level risk behaviour: Experimental evidence on stereotypical discounting behaviour. Public Management Review, 24, 601–630. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1862287
82.
WhyteW. (1956). The organization man. Simon and Schuster.
83.
ZhouR.PhamM. T. (2004). Promotion and prevention across mental accounts: When financial products dictate consumers& investment goals. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 125–135. https://doi.org/10.1086/383429
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.
