Montclair State University

Montclair State University Digital

Commons

Theses, Dissertations and Culminating Projects

1-2023

Social Influence on Risky Decision Making

Kesha Patel
Montclair State University

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.montclair.edu/etd

Part of the Psychology Commons

Recommended Citation
Patel, Kesha, "Social Influence on Risky Decision Making" (2023). Theses, Dissertations and Culminating
Projects. 1221.
https://digitalcommons.montclair.edu/etd/1221

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Montclair State University Digital Commons. It has been
accepted for inclusion in Theses, Dissertations and Culminating Projects by an authorized administrator of
Montclair State University Digital Commons. For more information, please contact digitalcommons@montclair.edu.
SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON RISKY CHOICE P a t e l |1

Abstract

Are people’s risk preferences influenced by the preferences of others they interact with or

observe? Traditionally, decision preferences were conceptualized as a stable, dispositional trait.

However, recent research has demonstrated that there is a degree of malleability in preferences,

with social influence having a particularly potent impact. To better understand the extent of

social influence on risky decision-making, a mixed-study design was carried out that involved

participants making a series of hypothetical monetary choices between smaller-certain and

larger-risky rewards. Participants completed three blocks of the risky-choice task: (1) the pre-

exposure block where choices were made without any social information, (2) the exposure block

where participants observed the choice of a social other after each trial, and (3) the post-exposure

block where participants once again made choices without any social information. Moreover, the

preferences of the social other during the exposure block were experimentally manipulated to be

the choices of either a risk-averse decision-maker or a risk-tolerant decision-maker. Two

individual difference measures (social comparison orientation, decisional conflict) were also

completed prior to the social exposure to investigate if some people are more susceptible to

social influence than others. The results indicated that exposure to social information did impact

participants’ risk preferences. Specifically, whereas the two experimental conditions did not

differ during the pre-exposure block, participants in the risk-tolerant social condition exhibited a

significantly higher preference for risky rewards during the post-exposure block compared to the

risk-averse social condition. Post-hoc analyses indicated that this difference between the two

experimental conditions was driven by participants in the risk-tolerant condition significantly

increasing their risky choices following the social exposure. For participants in the risk-averse

social condition, although risky choices were reduced following the exposure block, this change
SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON RISKY CHOICE P a t e l |2

did not reach statistical significance. The individual difference analyses found that those who

scored higher for decisional conflict were more likely to adjust their risk preferences following

the social exposure. In contrast, there was no significant relationship between general social

comparison tendencies and changes in risk preference. These findings support the idea that

decision-making preferences are informed by the observed preferences of others and have

implications for interventions that target risky behaviors in group settings.

Keywords: risky decision-making, risky choice, social influence, social comparison, decisional

conflict
SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON RISKY CHOICE P a t e l |3

MONTCLAIR STATE UNIVERSITY

Social Influence on Risky Decision Making
by
Kesha Patel
A Master's Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of
Montclair State University
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of
Master of Arts
December 2022
SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON RISKY CHOICE P a t e l |4

SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON RISKY DECISION-MAKING

A THESIS

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

For the degree of Master of Arts

By
Kesha Patel
Montclair State University
Montclair, NJ
2022
SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON RISKY CHOICE P a t e l |5

Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... 1
Thesis Signature Page .................................................................................................................... 3
Title Page ....................................................................................................................................... 4
Lists of Tables................................................................................................................................ 6
Lists of Figures .............................................................................................................................. 6
Social Influence on Risky Decision-Making ............................................................................... 7
Literature Review ...................................................................................................................... 8
Risky Decision-Making ............................................................................................................ 8
Social Influence on Risky Decision-Making and Behaviors .................................................. 11
Social Influence on Intertemporal Choice ............................................................................. 15
Overview of Current Study .................................................................................................... 18
Methods ........................................................................................................................................ 20
Materials .................................................................................................................................. 21
Risky Choice Task .................................................................................................................. 21
Decisional Conflict................................................................................................................. 24
Social Comparison Orientation ............................................................................................. 24
Demographics .......................................................................................................................... 25
Procedure ................................................................................................................................. 27
Data Analysis and Assumptions Check ................................................................................. 29
Results .......................................................................................................................................... 30
Descriptive Statistics ............................................................................................................... 30
Social Influence on Risk Preferences ..................................................................................... 33
Individual Differences ............................................................................................................. 35
Discussion..................................................................................................................................... 36
Limitations and Future Directions ............................................................................................ 40
References .................................................................................................................................... 42
SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON RISKY CHOICE P a t e l |6

Lists of Tables

Table 1 .......................................................................................................................................... 24

Table 2 .......................................................................................................................................... 25

Table 3 .......................................................................................................................................... 26

Table 4 .......................................................................................................................................... 32

Table 5 .......................................................................................................................................... 32

Table 6 .......................................................................................................................................... 36

Lists of Figures

Figure 1 ......................................................................................................................................... 22

Figure 2 ......................................................................................................................................... 22

Figure 3 ......................................................................................................................................... 33
SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON RISKY CHOICE P a t e l |7

Social Influence on Risky Decision-Making

Individuals’ risk preferences are central to the literature on decision-making (Frey

Pedroni, Mata, Rieskamp, & Hertwig, 2017; Johnson, Bixter, & Luhmann, 2020; Mishra, 2014;

Polman & Wu, 2020). Decisions involving risk are prevalent across a variety of consequential

life outcomes. Risky choices are involved when choosing to save or invest, decisions regarding

one’s health, entering a new major or profession, making new friends or connections, or

engaging in certain activities, such as extreme sports, gambling, or unlawful behaviors. The

construct of risky decision-making has been studied across various disciplines, including

economics, cognitive psychology, social psychology, health and medicine, and neuroscience, to

name a few. Though fundamental theories have been established to explain how individuals

make decisions involving risk, less is known about the extent decision preferences are informed

by the decisions of others. The current study sought to provide valuable information regarding

this important topic.

As human beings, social factors impact just about every decision we make. The power of

social influence, which is the tendency for an individual to be affected by the beliefs or behaviors

of others, has also been studied for decades in social and cognitive psychology. A particular

topic of interest has been if individuals engage in riskier behaviors or act differently in group

environments than by themselves. The majority of research investigating the domain of social

influence suggests that the presence of others does affect risky behaviors (e.g., Chein, Albert,

O’Brien, Uckert, & Steinberg, 2011; Gardner & Steinberg, 2005; O'Brien, Albert, Chein, &

Steinberg, 2011; Simons-Morton et al., 2011). However, the extent of the influence on risky

choices more generally remains unexplored. For instance, risky choice has often been studied in

the experimental literature by having individuals make choices between a certain, smaller reward
SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON RISKY CHOICE P a t e l |8

or a chance at a larger reward with the risk of receiving nothing. While insight into a decision-

maker’s risk preference is important for understanding the processing of decisions involving risk,

how social influence alters preferences on risky choices is also essential to know when making

decisions. If social influence affects risky choice preferences, any model of the risky choice

process would need to incorporate relevant social factors. More specifically, the current thesis

investigated the influence of being exposed to the choice preferences of a social other on

subsequent risky choice preferences in a controlled, laboratory setting.

Literature Review

Risky Decision-Making

Risky decisions involve outcome(s) that have some probability associated with their

occurrence. In some situations, these probabilities are known to the decision maker prior to

making their decision, in other instances these probabilities are uncertain and not known by the

decision maker. The present literature on risky decision-making has many theories on how one

makes decisions when presented with several choice options with varying levels of risk. A

classic behavioral economic theory that helped model how individuals make decisions under risk

is prospect theory (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). Prospect theory branches from its predecessor,

expected utility theory, which suggested that decision-makers rationalize the evaluation of all the

potential gains and losses and choose the option that maximizes expected utility (i.e., the long-

term expected gains of a reward option). Prospect theory is known as a more psychologically

realistic alternative as it takes into account that people are not entirely rational when making

decisions and have individual reference points determined by several factors, such as current
SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON RISKY CHOICE P a t e l |9

circumstances, past experiences, cultural norms, and having different preferences towards risk

(Kahneman & Tversky, 1979).

This behavioral model explains how decision makers process information with certain

cognitive bias and suggests that gains and losses are valued differently. Specifically, the fear of

loss influences one to have a stronger preference to avoid losses even if the prospect of a reward

option is equivalent or of a larger gain, termed as loss aversion (Gächter, Johnson, & Herrmann,

2022; Kahneman & Tversky, 1979; Sokol-Hessner & Rutledge, 2019). Likewise, prospect theory

also identifies the idea of the certainty effect, which suggests that individuals favor choices that

involve guaranteed gains compared to probable or risk outcomes (for a review, see Ramirez &

Levine, 2013). However, individual decision-making is a subjective process that is dependent on

the person. Individuals process risky decisions based on varying decision-making features. For

instance, the evaluations of the risky outcome’s worth, the probability of potential gains or losses

(Rachlin, Logue, Gibbon, & Frankel, 1986), and valence (Sanfey, Loewenstein, McClure, &

Cohen, 2006), which is the affective quality referring to the attractiveness or averseness of the

choices to assess the course of action.

When probabilities of risky outcomes are known by the decision maker, the evaluation of

the risky choices can be assessed by weighing the outcomes by their respective probabilities,

creating an expected value (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979; Li, 2003; Von Neumann &

Morgenstern, 1944). Expected value is a way to think about probable future outcomes

numerically as it is a probabilistic term depicting the fitting outcome of a scenario. It is

calculated by averaging all possible values each multiplied by the probability of its occurrence.

The greater the expected value, the higher the attractiveness of the choice. Likewise, the

subjective value of an outcome decreases as the probability of obtaining the outcome decreases.
SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON RISKY CHOICE P a t e l | 10

This is known as the probability weighting function, which is not a theory of risk but is used

referenced within other theories of risk, i.e., the prospect theory, as a predictive measure for

economic situations (Gonzalez & Wu, 1999). Prospect theory highlights that the worth of the

outcome is subjective and contingent on varying contexts (i.e., preferences, age, socio-economic

status, and education level) shaping risky choices (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979).

To illustrate different risk preferences, imagine a choice between a guaranteed reward of

$40 or a 50% chance at a reward of $80 (50% chance of receiving $0). A rational, risk-neutral,

decision-maker would be impartial toward the two rewards because the expected values for both

rewards are the same (.5 x 80 = 40 and 1.0 x 40 = 40). However, when presented with similar

binary monetary choices, researchers have observed different patterns of behaviors across

individuals, ranging from a greater reluctance to take risks (risk aversion) to more risk-seeking

patterns of decision-making (risk tolerance). Risk preferences are measured in the laboratory by

having participants make a series of binary (usually hypothetical) monetary choices between a

smaller-certain reward and a larger-risky reward. The magnitude of the rewards and the level of

risk is varied across trials. A greater selection of the risky reward option can be used as a marker

of risk tolerance. Prior research has associated increase selection of risky choices with chronic

drug use (e.g., Lane, Yechiam, & Busemeyer, 2006; Monterosso, Ehrman, Napier, O'Brien, &

Childress, 2001; Wittwer, Hulka, Heinimann, Vonmoos, & Quednow, 2016), pathological

gambling (Kyonka & Schutte, 2018), and higher levels of chronic stress (Ceccato, Kudielka, &

Schwieren, 2016).

There are some factors that have been found to modulate decision makers from being risk

aversive to more risk tolerant. For instance, people are more likely to be risk tolerant when

offered multiple opportunities to wager than if they were offered the option a single time
SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON RISKY CHOICE P a t e l | 11

(Redelmeier & Tversky, 1992) and when the choices are framed as a certain loss or a possibility

of a loss, even with the same expected value (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979; i.e., reflection effect

and loss aversion). People dislike losing more than they like winning, hence the willingness to

take risks to avoid the greater loss. Another example was observed by Markowitz (1952) who

challenged the utility function by proposing it has inflection points around individuals’ financial

wealth. Prelec and Loewenstein (1991) expanded on this observation by noting the “peanuts

effect,” which describes how decision-makers become less averse to risk when playing with

smaller payouts. Weber and Chapman (2005) examined the peanuts effect and found that the

magnitude of the payout influences risk preferences as people will be less likely to choose the

riskier gamble as the payout increases. Additionally, they found decision makers become less

risk tolerant as the levels of probability increase which is explained by prospect theory, also

termed the Allais common ratio effect (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). Essentially, these are

varying components that play a role when individuals process information to make a decision

that involves risk.

Social Influence on Risky Decision-Making and Behaviors

Though much of the research on risky decision-making has focused on decisions made by

individuals, social environments have also been recognized in prior research to impact decision-

making behavior. To describe social influence, the American Psychological Association (APA;

2022) online dictionary defined it as “any changes in an individual’s thoughts, feelings, or

behaviors caused by other people, who may be actually present or whose presence is imagined,

expected, or only implied”. A study by Knoll, Magis-Weinberg, Speekenbrink, and Blakemore

(2015) was able to observe this effect as they conducted a study on 563 participating visitors of

the Science Museum in London ranging from late childhood through adulthood to investigate
SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON RISKY CHOICE P a t e l | 12

social influences on risk preferences. Participants rated risky scenarios of everyday situations

(e.g., driving without a seatbelt) on a spectrum from low risk to high risk. Participants were then

shown randomly generated ratings from either group of teenagers or adults, or their own ratings

as the control group, and asked to rate the same scenarios again. Their results indicated that

participants altered risk preferences after exposure to social information. Specifically, the

researchers found that the changes in ratings gravitated toward the social information presented.

Social conformity describes how individuals adjust and align their beliefs and behavior to

change according to the socially accepted conventions or standards of their group. Toelch and

Dolan (2015) differentiate informational influence and normative influence as decision-making

models of conformity. Informational social influence occurs when people have intentions or

motive to make adaptive decisions that are beneficial for their current situation by using others as

a source of information to gain knowledge. Individuals might do this to act appropriately and to

avoid standing out from the group. Normative social influence occurs when people seek

belongingness to the group or want to avoid social punishment and feel pressure to behave as

others do elicited by social expectations or rules. It is usually out of fear of receiving rejection or

criticism from others. The influence of social comparison can stem from that fear of being

different and using the information given to make adaptive behaviors or decisions. People tend to

like those who are similar to them, consequently relating to believing that to be liked by others,

they must be similar to those around them (Baumeister, 2007; Ušto, Drače, & Hadžiahmetović,

2019). Individuals will still conform to be accepted by a group even if they privately disagree

with the behaviors or beliefs of the group (Asch, 1951).

Social psychologists have explored conformity effects on individuals’ attitudes and

actions in controlled group environments discovering the phenomenon known as the group
SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON RISKY CHOICE P a t e l | 13

polarization effect (Isenberg, 1986; McGarty, Turner, Hogg, David, & Wetherell, 1992; Van

Swol, 2009). Group polarization describes how individuals in a group will tend to adopt a

stronger or different position than their original position that is more aligned with the group

opinion. For instance, if a decision maker joins an environment where people are more risk

tolerant in their opinions or decisions, it amplifies the decision maker’s own risk tolerance

towards similar behaviors of the group. This impact of group polarization can skew in either

direction depending on the context, from playing it safer to risk seeking, and occurs as group

discussion leads the members to adopt similar beliefs or behaviors than their initial responses

(Baumeister, 2007). The study of group polarization has often involved tasks that examine

individual changes during risk-based decisions using hypothetical choice scenarios, behavioral

observations, or self-reports of behaviors (Baumeister, 2007; Friedkin, 1999; Isenberg, 1986;

Knoll et al., 2015; McGarty et al., 1992; Van Swol, 2009). Previous researchers observed a

larger shift of being more risk-tolerant when in group settings, coining the now-discredited

finding of the risky shift, which stated that groups generally behaved riskier than individuals

would if they were alone. The risky shift has since been reconceptualized as the choice shift as

the discovery that overall group attitudes differed from members’ initial choices after group

discussions encouraged motivation to study this behavior further. The choice shift recognizes

that the attitudes of the individual can shift in either direction after a group interaction and is

measured by collecting and comparing one’s pre-discussion to post-discussion responses

(Friedkin, 1999; McGarty et al., 1992).

The recent literature on social influence on risky behaviors has largely focused on

adolescents and teenage samples (e.g., Albert, Chein, & Steinberg, 2013; Gardner & Steinberg,

2005; Simons-Morton et al., 2011; Silva, Chein, & Steinberg, 2016; Smith, Chein, & Steinberg,
SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON RISKY CHOICE P a t e l | 14

2014). An example applied context of some of this previous research is on risky driving

behaviors in group environments, with a finding being that individuals behave riskier with peers

present than if they were alone in various driving simulation experiments (Albert et al., 2013;

Chein et al., 2011; Gardner & Steinberg, 2005; Silva et al., 2016). Gardner and Steinberg (2005)

investigated the developmental differences of peer influence on risky decisions and found that all

ages in their sample took more risks and made more risky decisions when in a group setting than

when alone. They had a total of 306 participants categorized into three age groups (i.e.,

adolescents, youth, and adults). The researchers administered two questionnaires with

hypothetical scenarios to measure risky decision preferences and administered a behavioral task

using a driving simulation game that required participants to decide whether to stop a car as the

traffic light turned from green to yellow to accumulate points or risk running a red light and

crashing into a brick wall, losing all the points. In the group condition, participants were able to

discuss each scenario or question but responded independently and took turns playing the trials

while the others were told they can advise the player on what to do. The findings were that those

who completed the measures with peers took or chose more risks compared to those who

completed the same measures by themselves. The behavioral task scores demonstrated that peer

presence influenced adolescents and young adult participants to be increasingly riskier and

caused the adult participants to be less risk averse when in a group as they were mostly averse to

risky driving when alone.

A study conducted by Brunette and Cabantous (2015) investigated the effects of social

influence on individual risk preferences by presenting participants with choices between a safe

and a risky lottery for risk (i.e., known probabilities) and ambiguous (i.e., unknown probabilities)

prospects either alone or in a group of three. They found that those in the three-person group,
SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON RISKY CHOICE P a t e l | 15

even without interaction, were averse to risk but are less risk averse than when each member

were alone. Smith et al. (2014) further explored effects of peer presence on risk-taking in a

probabilistic gambling task among adolescents. In the task, participants were shown a series of

wheels sectioned as a potential gain, loss, and neutral outcome and decided whether to play or

pass on the offers. Within the task, players accumulated or loss hypothetical tokens by

increments of ten and began with 100 tokens. The study found that compared to participants who

completed the task alone, those who believed an anonymous peer was observing their decisions

chose to play more, even when the probability of loss was greater. Overall, the presence of others

has been shown to influence participants’ decision-making or risky behaviors in these studies,

leading participants to react differently in social environments compared to purely individual

environments.

Social Influence on Intertemporal Choice

The above studies mainly focused on social influence on decision preferences in applied

risky contexts through hypothetical scenarios or driving stimulations. The hypotheses for the

current thesis also build off of more recent research that investigated social influence on

decision-making more generally, particularly intertemporal choice. Intertemporal choices are

similar to risky choices (Johnson et al., 2020), but the decisions are between a smaller, more

immediate reward and a larger, more delayed reward. The extent that individuals discount the

value of delayed rewards (i.e., prefer more immediate gratification) has been found to relate to

many consequential life outcomes (e.g., Bickel, Odum, & Madden, 1999; Monterosso et al.,

2001; Petry, 2001; Vadhan, Hart, Haney, van Gorp, & Foltin, 2009; Wiehler & Peters, 2015).
SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON RISKY CHOICE P a t e l | 16

Emerging laboratory research has studied social influence on intertemporal decision

preferences by measuring changes in participants’ decisions following social interaction or

exposure to the preferences of others (e.g., Bixter & Rogers, 2019; Bixter & Luhmann, 2020;

Bixter, Trimber, & Luhmann, 2017; Calluso, Tosoni, Fortunato, & Committeri, 2017; Gilman,

Curran, Calderon, Stoeckel, & Evins, 2014; Kedia, Brohmer, Scholten, & Corcoran, 2019;

Moutoussis, Dolan, & Dayan, 2016; O'Brien et al., 2011; Schwenke, Dshemuchadse, Vesper,

Bleichner, & Scherbaum, 2017; Thomas, Lockwood, Garvert, & Balsters, 2022; Tsuruta &

Inukai, 2018; Weigard, Chein, Albert, Smith, & Steinberg, 2014). An example binary

intertemporal choice in these types of laboratory studies would be a choice between $67 today or

$88 in 35 days. Studies examining collaborative intertemporal decision-making have used a

study design that consists of three decision-making blocks: (1) a pre-collaboration block where

participants make a series of choices along, (2) a collaboration block where participants make

choices together (e.g., in a dyad or a small group), and (3) a post-collaboration block, where

participants once again make a series of choices individually (Bixter & Luhmann, 2020; Bixter

& Rogers, 2019; Bixter et al., 2017). This study design allowed researchers to quantify social

influence by measuring how decision preferences changed from pre- to post-collaboration. The

results of these studies indicate the effects of social influence on choice preferences after social

interaction. Specifically, individual group members’ post-collaboration decision preferences

were significantly more similar to one another compared to the baseline preferences exhibited

during the pre-collaboration block (i.e., a social convergence effect: Bixter & Rogers, 2019;

Bixter et al., 2017). These results demonstrate a degree of adaptability in individuals’

intertemporal decision preferences, with individuals adjusting their preferences to be more

aligned with the preferences of others they previously socially interacted with. Furthermore,
SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON RISKY CHOICE P a t e l | 17

Bixter et al. (2017) found that those who self-reported less confidence in their intertemporal

decision-making were more likely to adjust their choice preferences following collaboration,

demonstrating a role of individual difference factors in the susceptibility to behavioral social

influence.

One potential limitation of the collaborative decision-making study design is that

researchers have no control over the decision preferences individuals will be exposed to during

the collaboration block. That is, multiple participants sign up for a particular laboratory time slot,

each with their own idiosyncratic decision preferences, who then go on to interact together

during the collaboration block. This makes inferring causality of the social influence effects

difficult. A remedy to this issue is for researchers to exert control over the decision preferences

of a social other that participants are exposed to in a laboratory setting. That is, a collaboration

block can be replaced with an exposure block where participants are simply exposed to the

choices made by a social other. This can allow the researcher to control the nature of the decision

preferences of the social other (e.g., to be someone that discounts future rewards a lot or a little).

One such study was by Calluso et al. (2017) who focused on whether intertemporal choice

preferences could be manipulated in certain directions (e.g., more present or future oriented).

They had participants complete an intertemporal choice task to measure their baseline preference

and be categorized into groups according to preferences (e.g., high or low discounters).

Participants were then given the same task but observed a pattern of choices that were the

opposite of their initial preferences being made and asked to express their choice again. The

results indicated that participants who preferred immediate rewards when they were alone chose

more delayed rewards as they were shown a selection of majority delayed rewards and vice versa

for those who initially preferred delayed rewards. These findings support the power of influence
SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON RISKY CHOICE P a t e l | 18

towards decision conformity and convergence based on the social information presented to

individuals.

Overview of Current Study

The psychological processing and behavioral aspects of decision-making in individuals

have been studied in research for decades, but less is known about the extent decision

preferences are informed by the decisions of social others (i.e., the degree that decision

preferences are socially contagious). In the risky decision-making realm, research on social

influence has largely focused on applied contexts (e.g., group polarization scenarios, simulated

driving environments). The goal of the current study was to investigate the impact of social

influence on risky decision-making more generally in a controlled, laboratory environment (that

helps strengthen causal conclusions). The study involved participants making a series of binary

hypothetical monetary choices (between smaller-certain rewards and larger-risky rewards).

Participants completed three blocks of the risky choice task: (1) the pre-exposure block where

choices were made without any social information, (2) the exposure block where participants

observed the choice of a social other on each trial, and (3) the post-exposure block where

participants once again made choices without any social information. Moreover, the preferences

of the social other during the exposure block were experimentally manipulated to be the choices

of either a risk-averse decision maker or a risk-tolerant decision maker. This study design

afforded the ability to test if exposure to the preferences of the social other significantly

influenced the subsequent preferences of the participants, as well as testing if social influence is

stronger in a particular direction (i.e., towards a risk tolerant social other or a risk averse social

other). Our first hypothesis was:

SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON RISKY CHOICE P a t e l | 19

Hypothesis 1: Exposure to the preferences of a social other will influence risky choice

preferences, such that individuals exposed to the choice preferences of a risk-tolerant

social other will exhibit more risk-tolerant choice preferences post-exposure compared to

individuals exposed to the choice preferences of a risk-averse social other.

A secondary goal of the current study was to provide initial evidence regarding individual

differences in susceptibility to social influence on risky decision-making. First, a general

tendency to compare oneself to others has been found to vary across individuals and relate to

various outcomes (Jiang & Ngien, 2020; Ruggieri, Ingoglia, Bonfanti, & Coco, 2021; Thau,

Aquino, & Wittek, 2007). In the current context, it was hypothesized that individuals who self-

reported stronger tendencies to compare their opinions and abilities to others would adjust their

risky decision-making preferences more from pre- to post-exposure of the social information.

The second individual difference factor explored in the current study was decisional conflict

(related to decision confidence or certainty). Bixter et al. (2017) found that individuals with

lower decision confidence were more likely to adjust their intertemporal choice preferences to

align with the preference exhibited by other following social interaction. In the current study, it

was hypothesized that individuals who self-reported more decisional conflict following the pre-

exposure block would adjust their risky decision-making preferences more from pre- to post-

exposure of the social information.

Hypothesis 2: Individuals scoring higher in social comparison orientation will exhibit a

larger social influence effect on risky choice preferences.

Hypothesis 3: Individuals scoring higher in decisional conflict will exhibit a larger social

influence effect on risky choice preferences.

SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON RISKY CHOICE P a t e l | 20

Methods

Participants

The participants were 105 undergraduate students from Montclair State University

(MSU) enrolled in psychology courses that involve earning SONA research credits. They were

recruited through the MSU SONA system. Two participants were excluded due to technical

difficulties that prevented them from completing the risky choice task. All results below are from

the 103 remaining participants. Seventy-four percent of the participants were female (n = 76),

23% were males (n = 24), and 3% identified as another gender (n = 3). The age range was from

18 to 37 years old with an average of 19.52 (SD = 2.54). The race of the sample was 42.7%

White, 35% Black or African American, 6.8% Asian, 6.8% more than one race, and 8.7% were

from some other race. Additionally, 31.1% of the sample was Hispanic/Latino. The yearly

household income of the sample was as follows: 13.6% less than $25,000, 12.6% $25,000-

$49,999, 15.5% $50,000-$74,999, 24.3% more than $75,000, and 34% did not know for certain.

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Montclair State University.

Furthermore, the study was pre-registered with the Open Science Framework (OSF). The pre-

registration included the study information, hypotheses, research questions, design plan,

sampling plan, power analyses, study materials, and analysis plan. The pre-registration can be

accessed at https://osf.io/nbgxf/.
SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON RISKY CHOICE P a t e l | 21

Materials

Risky Choice Task

The risky choice task consisted of a series of hypothetical monetary choices between a

smaller, certain reward and a larger, risky reward. For instance, a choice might be between a

100% chance of receiving $35 or a 50% chance of receiving $80 (with the other 50% chance of

receiving $0). The task consisted of 32 unique choices. These choices were determined by the

magnitude of the certain reward ($20, $35, $50, or $65), the probability/percent of the risky

reward (50% or 60%), and the magnitude of the risky reward ($80, $95, $110, or $125). On each

trial, the words “Which would you prefer?” were included at the top-center of the computer

screen, the certain reward was presented in the middle-left of the computer screen, and the risky

reward was presented in the middle-right of the computer screen (see Figure 1 for an example

trial). Participants made their responses by pressing either the left arrow key (for the certain

reward) or the right arrow key (for the risky reward). The presentation order of the 32 trials was

randomized.

Participants completed three blocks of the risky choice task: the pre-exposure block, the

exposure block, and the post-exposure block. In both the pre- and post-exposure blocks,

participants made their choices without receiving any social information. That is, participants

would be presented a choice between the certain and risky rewards, they would make their

choice, and then a two-second inter-trial interval (ITI) would occur before the presentation of the

subsequent choice. Participants were not provided information regarding the outcome of the

risky reward if chosen. This was to prevent participants’ choices from being influenced by the

outcome of previous trials (e.g., “playing with house money”).

SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON RISKY CHOICE P a t e l | 22

F IGURE 1
RISKY CHOICE TASK

F IGURE 2
S OCIAL OTHER' S CHOICE

The intermediate exposure block was the same as the other two blocks, except that

participants received social information after making each choice (see Figure 2 for an example

trial). The choice of the social other was presented to the screen for five seconds after a

participant made their choice. Participants were instructed that they would be presented the
SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON RISKY CHOICE P a t e l | 23

choices of a randomly chosen prior participant who completed the task earlier after making each

choice. In actuality, this social information consisted of the experimental manipulation.

Participants were randomly assigned to be exposed to the choices of either a more risk-averse or

a more risk-tolerant social other. The risk-tolerant “other” chose the risky reward 75% of the

time and the risk-averse “other” chose the risky reward 25% of the time. The precise choices of

the social other were determined by establishing a cutoff based on the expected value difference

(EVD) of the trial choice. The EVD of an individual trial could be estimated by the following

formula:

𝐸𝑉𝐷 = (𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑘𝑦 𝑟𝑒𝑤𝑎𝑟𝑑 ∗ 𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑘𝑦 𝑟𝑒𝑤𝑎𝑟𝑑) − 𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑟𝑒𝑤𝑎𝑟𝑑

As an example, if the choice were between a certain $35 and a 50% chance of receiving $80, the

EVD of the trial would be +$5 (i.e., (.5*$80) - $35). Positive EVD imply that the risky reward

has the higher expected value; negative EVD imply that the certain reward has the higher

expected value. The risk-tolerant other was constructed to choose the certain reward only on the

eight trials that had an EVD less than -2 (and choose the risky reward on the 24 trials with an

EVD greater than or equal to -2). Conversely, the risk-averse social other was constructed to

choose the certain reward on the 24 trials that had an EVD less than +28 (and choose the risky

reward on the 8 trials with an EVD greater than or equal to +28).

The three blocks of the risky choice task allowed the hypotheses of the current study to

be tested. Specifically, the pre-exposure block allowed baseline risk preferences to be measured,

the exposure block involved the experimental manipulation of being exposed to the preferences

of a social other that was either risk-averse or risk-tolerant, and the post-exposure block allowed

risk preferences to be assessed after experiencing the experimental manipulation.

SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON RISKY CHOICE P a t e l | 24

Decisional Conflict

Following the pre-exposure risky choice block, participants completed six self-report

items that were adapted from the Decisional Conflict Scale (O’Connor, 1995). The participants

were instructed to think about the choices they made during the pre-exposure block and rate how

strongly they agreed or disagreed with the items (see Table 1 for the individual items).

Responses were made using a 1 to 5 response scale, with 1 “strongly disagree” and 5 “strongly

agree.” The decisional conflict scores derive from the two subscales of decision uncertainty and

perceived effective decision-making. The Cronbach’s alpha in the current sample was acceptable

for the overall scale (α = .742), questionable for the decision uncertainty subscale (α = .665), and

poor for the perceived effective decision-making subscale (α = .540).

T ABLE 1
DECISIONAL CONFLICT S CALE
Decision Uncertainty
1. These decisions were hard for me to make
2. I was unsure what to do in these decisions
3. It was clear what choice was best for me (reverse scored)
Perceived Effective Decision Making
4. I feel I made informed decisions (reverse scored)
5. I would expect to stick with my decisions (reverse scored)
6. I am satisfied with my decisions (reverse scored)
Note: Adaptation of the Decisional Conflict Scale from O’Connor (1995) with a response scale ranging from 1
“strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree.”

Social Comparison Orientation

Prior to the risky choice task, participants completed the Iowa-Netherlands Comparison

Orientation Measure (INCOM) from Gibbons and Buunk (1999). The measure consists of eleven

self-report items that assess social comparison tendencies (see Table 2 for a complete list of
SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON RISKY CHOICE P a t e l | 25

items). The scale produces an overall social comparison tendency score as well as two subscales

measuring ability comparisons (items 1-6) and opinion comparisons (items 7-11) to others.

Responses were made on a 1 to 5 scale, with 1 as ‘I disagree strongly’ and 5 as ‘I agree strongly’.

The Cronbach’s alpha in the current sample was acceptable for the overall score (α = .735), the

ability subscale (α = .714), and not acceptable for the opinions subscale (α = .443).

T ABLE 2
T HE I OWA -N ETHERLANDS COMPARISON ORIENTATION MEASURE (INCOM)
Ability Comparison
1. I often compare how my loved ones (boy or girlfriend, family members, etc.) are doing
with how others are doing.
2. I always pay a lot of attention to how I do things compared with how others do things.
3. If I want to find out how well I have done something, I compare what I have done with
how others have done.
4. I often compare how I am doing socially (e.g., social skills, popularity) with other people.
5. I am not the type of person who compares often with others. (reverse scored)
6. I often compare myself with others with respect to what I have accomplished in life.
Opinion Comparison
7. I often like to talk with others about mutual opinions and experiences.
8. I often try to find out what others think who face similar problems as I face.
9. I always like to know what others in a similar situation would do.
10. If I want to learn more about something, I try to find out what others think about it.
11. I never consider my situation in life relative to that of other people. (reverse scored)
Note: Iowa-Netherlands Comparison Orientation Measure (INCOM) from Gibbons and Buunk (1999) with
response scale ranging from 1 “I disagree strongly” to 5 “I agree strongly.”

Demographics

A background questionnaire was administered to collect participants’ gender, age,

ethnicity, race, and yearly household income (see Table 3).

SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON RISKY CHOICE P a t e l | 26

T ABLE 3
STUDY P ARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHICS

Characteristic n %
Gender
Male 24 23.3%
Female 76 73.8%
Not listed 3 2.9%
Race
American Indian/Alaskan native 0 0.0%
Asian 7 6.8%
Black or African American 36 35.0%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific 0 0.0%
Islander
White 44 42.7%
More than one race 7 6.8%
Not listed 9 8.7%
Ethnicity
Hispanic 32 31.1%
Not Hispanic 71 68.9%
Yearly household income
Less than $25,000 14 13.6%
$25,000 to $49,999 13 12.6%
$50,000 to $74,999 16 15.5%
More than $75,000 25 24.3%
Do not know 35 34.0%
Note: Participants’ gender, age, ethnicity, race, and yearly household income.
SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON RISKY CHOICE P a t e l | 27

Procedure

Participants volunteered through SONA (a website used to recruit students for various

psychological studies on campus). Upon entering the laboratory, participants read and signed an

informed consent form. They then completed the demographic questionnaire and the social

comparison orientation scale (Gibbons & Buunk, 1999). Participants were then escorted to an

individual computer station where they first completed the pre-exposure block of the risky

choice task. Participants were naive to the true nature of the study and did not receive any

information that they would subsequently be exposed to the choices of a social other. This helped

ensure that the pre-exposure block of risky choice trials could act as a baseline measure of

participants’ risk preferences. Immediately following the pre-exposure block, participants were

presented with the six modified items of the Decisional Conflict Scale (O’Connor, 1995) on the

computer. This was so that decisional conflict was measured in participants prior to the

experimental manipulation in the subsequent exposure block.

In the second (exposure) block, participants were provided instructions that informed

them of the social information. Specifically, they received the following instructions:

In the next block of the study, you will be completing a task similar to the

one you just previously completed. However, this time there is the chance that you

will be shown on each trial the choice that was made on that trial by another

participant who completed the task at an earlier time. That is, after you make

your choice, you would be shown for a few seconds the choice that was made by

this prior participant. This other participant would be randomly chosen from the

pool of participants who have previously completed the task.

SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON RISKY CHOICE P a t e l | 28

Now, there are two “Players” for this block of the study (Player A and

Player B). If you get assigned to be Player A, the next block of the study will look

the same as the previous block you just completed. However, if you get assigned

to be Player B, following each of your choices you will be exposed to the choice

made by the prior participant (who would be Player A). As an example, following

your choice you would be presented with a screen that looks like the following

figure [an example trial presentation was included].

Once you begin the task, the computer will randomly assign you to be

either Player A or Player B. If you are assigned to be Player A, your choices

during this block of the study will be shown to a future participant. However, if

you are assigned to be Player B, you will simply observe the choices made by a

previous participant. Also, if you are Player B, your choices during this phase of

the study will never be shown to a future participant.

After the exposure block started on the computer, participants were then led to believe that the

computer would randomly assign them to Player A or Player B. In fact, participants were also

presented with the following text: You have been assigned to be Player B. This means that you

will observe the choices made by a prior participant, but no future participant will observe your

choices. This description of the two Player roles was included to help increase the believability

that the choices of the social other came from another participant. Moreover, the universal

assignment to the Player B role was so that participants would make their choices without being

concerned that their choices would subsequently be presented to somebody else (which could

create a social desirability effect).

SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON RISKY CHOICE P a t e l | 29

In the third (post-exposure) block, participants were instructed that they would complete

a block of trials that were similar to the first (pre-exposure) block. Once finished, participants

were thanked, given a debriefing form informing them of the true nature of the study, and were

granted their SONA credits.

Data Analysis and Assumptions Check

The main dependent variable of interest was preference for risk on the choice task. This

was operationalized by calculating the proportion of trials that the risky reward was chosen. As a

result, preferences could range from 0 to 1, with higher values implying greater tolerance for

risk. Separate estimates of risk preferences were estimated for each of the three blocks of the

risky choice task (the pre-exposure, exposure, and post-exposure blocks).

Risk preferences were then entered into a 2 X 3 mixed-ANOVA with experimental

condition (risk-tolerant social other vs. risk-averse social other) as the between-subjects factor

and risky choice task block (pre-exposure, exposure, and post-exposure) as the within-subjects

factor. Post-hoc tests were then performed to measure the difference between the two

experimental conditions at each of the three risky choice task blocks. The standard p < .05

criteria was used for determining statistical significance.

Hypotheses 2 and 3 relate to the relationship between the individual difference measures

(social comparison orientation, decisional conflict) and social influence on risky choice. As a

behavioral measure of social influence, the absolute difference was calculated between

participants' risk preferences during the pre-exposure and post-exposure blocks. Larger values on

this metric imply a greater change in preferences from pre-social exposure to post-social
SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON RISKY CHOICE P a t e l | 30

exposure. Bivariate correlations were then performed relating the behavioral social influence

scores to both the social comparison orientation and decisional conflict measures.

Statistical assumptions were tested prior to all main analyses. First, the normality

assumption was tested for the risk preferences dependent variable during the pre-exposure block

(i.e., the baseline measure prior to the experimental manipulation). The Shapiro-Wilk statistic was

not significant (p = .266), as were the skewness (z = -1.56, p = .119) and kurtosis statistics (z =

0.05, p = .958). Moreover, no extreme outliers were observed based on inspecting a boxplot.

Similar results were found for the two individual difference measures, with the Shapiro-Wilk

statistic being non-significant for the social comparison orientation measure (p = .319) and the

decisional conflict measure (p = .056). For the mixed-ANOVA, the Levene’s Test of Equality of

Variances was met for the risk preferences dependent variable prior to the experimental

manipulation (p = .774), the Mauchly’s Test of Sphericity was met (p = .070), and Box’s Test of

Equality of Covariance Matrices was higher than the recommended p-value cutoff of .001 (p =

.024).

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics for the main study variables are included in Table 4. During the pre-

exposure risky choice block, participants chose the risky reward 57.55% of the time on average.

This helps ensure that baseline risk preferences were far from a ceiling or floor effect that would

mitigate any chance for social influence.

Table 4 also includes descriptive statistics for the pre-exposure risky choice block broken

down by trial parameters. These patterns of risk preferences ensure that participants responded to
SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON RISKY CHOICE P a t e l | 31

changes in trial parameters appropriately. Specifically, as the magnitude of the certain reward

increased ($20, $35, $50, and $65), the preference for the risky reward decreased monotonically.

These descriptive differences were confirmed through a significant repeated-measures ANOVA

F(3, 306) = 126.55, p < .001, ηp2 = .55, with the pairwise comparisons between all four certain

reward values being statistically significant (all ps < .001).

As the magnitude of the risky reward increased ($80, $95, $110, and $125), the

preference for the risky reward increased monotonically. These descriptive differences were

confirmed through a significant repeated-measures ANOVA, F(3, 306) = 42.58, p < .001, ηp2 =

.30, with the pairwise comparisons between all four certain reward values being statistically

significant (all ps < .01).

Finally, preference for the risky reward was higher when the probability of the risky

reward was .60 compared to when the probability was .50. This difference was confirmed by a

paired-samples t test, t(102) = 5.59, p < .001, Cohen’s d = .55.

SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON RISKY CHOICE P a t e l | 32

T ABLE 4
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

Descriptive Statistics
n M SD
SCO 103 3.4342 .52855
DC 103 2.4984 .65117
Risky Choice Task
Pre-Exposure Block 103 .5755 .19931
Exposure Block 103 .6265 .20772
Post-Exposure Block 103 .6214 .21612
Pre-Exposure Block
Certain $20 103 .8167 .24242
Certain $35 103 .7027 .27010
Certain $50 103 .4551 .28107
Certain $65 103 .3277 .26552
Risky $80 103 .4672 .21363
Risky $95 103 .5255 .22846
Risky $110 103 .6214 .25272
Risky $125 103 .6881 .25954
50% Probability 103 .5006 .25553
60% Probability 103 .6505 .22627
Note: SCO = social comparison orientation measure. DC = decisional conflict measure.

T ABLE 5
R ISK PREFERENCES THROUGHOUT S TUDY BLOCKS
Conditions
Blocks Risk-averse other Risk-tolerant other
M M
Pre-exposure .595 .556
Exposure .588 .666
Post-exposure .563 .681
SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON RISKY CHOICE P a t e l | 33

Social Influence on Risk Preferences

To investigate if exposure to social information influenced risk preferences, a 2 (social

influence condition) X 3 (risky choice block) mixed-ANOVA was conducted. Figure 3 includes

the risk preferences across the three blocks for the two experimental conditions. As can be seen,

there was a statistically significant interaction between the experimental condition and risky

choice block, F(2, 202) = 14.874, p < .001, ηp2 = .13. This interaction supports Hypothesis 1 and

indicates that social information during the exposure phase did have an impact on risk

preferences.

F IGURE 3
ILLUSTRATES RISK PREFERENCES THROUGHOUT B LOCKS
Risk-Averse Other Risk-Tolerant Other
0.8
Preference for Risky Rewards

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4
Pre-Exposure Exposure Post-Exposure
Risky Choice Task Block
Note: Illustrates the change in risk preferences after being exposed to risk-averse and risk-
tolerant conditions throughout the blocks

To examine the significant interaction further, pairwise comparisons between the two

experimental conditions were performed for each trial block. The data showed that risk

preferences were similar during the pre-exposure block for the risk-averse (M = .60, SD = .21)
SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON RISKY CHOICE P a t e l | 34

and risk-tolerant (M = .56, SD = .19) social conditions (p = .321). During the exposure block,

preference for the risky reward was lower in the risk-averse (M = .59, SD = .23) compared to the

risk-tolerant (M = .67, SD = .17) condition, although this difference was marginally significant (p

= .055). For the post-exposure block, risk preferences were significantly different between the

risk-averse (M = .56, SD = .24) and the risk-tolerant (M = .68, SD = .17) conditions (p = .005).

These results demonstrate that risk preferences were not different between the two experimental

conditions at baseline, but differences emerged after observing the choice preferences of others

during the exposure block.

Another way to explore the significant interaction further is by comparing risk

preferences across trial blocks for each experimental condition. For the risk-averse social

condition, although preference for the risky reward did decrease numerically following the

exposure block, none of the three trial blocks significantly differed from one another (all ps >

.16). Conversely, for the risk-tolerant social condition, preference for the risky reward was

significantly higher during the post-exposure block than both the pre-exposure and exposure

blocks (all ps < .001). The difference between the exposure and post-exposure blocks was not

significant (p = .425). These results demonstrate that for the risk-tolerant condition, exposure to

the choice preferences of a risky decision maker did significantly increase preference for the

risky reward, which was sustained into the post-exposure block. For the risk-averse condition,

exposure to the choice preferences of a risk-averse decision maker did not significantly decrease

the preference for the risky reward. This asymmetry in social influence was not hypothesized a

priori, but possible explanations for it are included in the Discussion below.

There were a number of participants (n = 30) who had risk preferences during the pre-

exposure block that were outside the range of preferences exhibited by the social other during the
SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON RISKY CHOICE P a t e l | 35

exposure block. That is, participants who chose the risky reward option less than or equal to 25%

or greater than or equal to 75% of the time. As a robustness check, the above mixed ANOVA

was performed restricting the sample to the participants that exhibited risk preferences during the

pre-exposure block that were within the range of the two social others. The patterns of results

were the same as the above results. Specifically, the interaction between experimental condition

and risky choice block remained statistically significant, F(2, 142) = 10.410, p < .001, ηp2 =

.13). Moreover, the patterns of significance for the various pairwise comparisons remained the

same as above.

Individual Differences

The following analyses focus on the relationships between the individual difference

measures (social comparison tendencies, decisional conflict) and the behavioral measure of

social influence (i.e., the absolute difference between participants' risk preferences during the

pre-exposure and post-exposure blocks). See Table 6 for the Pearson correlations between the

individual difference measures and the behavioral measure of social influence. As can be seen,

there was no significant relationship between behavioral social influence and overall social

comparison tendency (r = .02, p = .835). Furthermore, behavioral social influence did not

significantly correlate with either the abilities (r = -.03, p = .742) and opinions (r = .10, p = .303)

subscales of the social comparison tendency measure. These results demonstrate that Hypothesis

2 was not supported; behavioral social influence on risk preferences was not related to a general

tendency to compare oneself to others.

Behavioral social influence on risk preferences was related to decisional conflict. This

included the overall measure of decisional conflict (r = .27, p = .007), as well as the decisional
SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON RISKY CHOICE P a t e l | 36

uncertainty (r = .24, p = .015) and decisional effectiveness (r = -.23, p = .019) subscales. These

results support Hypothesis 3 and demonstrate that individuals with higher decisional conflict

during the pre-exposure block were more likely to adjust their risk preferences following the

exposure block (i.e., demonstrated increased behavioral social influence).

T ABLE 6
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCE MEASURES AND
BEHAVIORAL MEASURE OF SOCIAL INFLUENCE

Note: Using a Pearson correlation analysis, the absolute change of risk preferences from Block 1 to Block 3 was
compared to the individual difference measures.
SCO = social comparison orientation measure. DC = decisional conflict measure.
*
p < .05, two-tailed. **p < .01, two-tailed.

Discussion

The goal of the present study was to investigate the extent a person’s risky decisions

change after being exposed to the choices made by another in a controlled, laboratory

environment. The main hypothesis was that if social influence affects decisions involving risk,

then individuals’ choice preferences will gravitate towards the experimentally manipulated risk

preferences of the social others they were exposed to. Overall, exposure to social information did

have an impact on risk preferences. When making a series of choices between certain and risky

monetary rewards, the average preference for risky rewards was similar in both experimental
SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON RISKY CHOICE P a t e l | 37

conditions prior to the social information exposure. However, preferences significantly diverged

after being exposed to the choices of the social others. Specifically, the findings suggest that

participants who were shown the decisions of a risk-tolerant social other chose the risky rewards

significantly more often during the post-exposure block compared to participants in the risk-

averse condition.

The current study also investigated if certain individual difference variables relate to

behavioral social influence on risky choice. Behavioral social influence on risky choice did not

correlate with a general tendency of someone to compare themselves to others, as measured by

the Iowa-Netherlands Comparison Orientation Measure (Gibbons & Buunk, 1999). These results

suggest that social influence on risky choice may not be tied to a general social influence or

comparison disposition, but may be more tied to the decisional context. Along those lines, a

measure of decisional conflict (O’Connor, 1995) that was completed following the pre-exposure

block of the risky choice task did relate to subsequent changes in individual risk preferences.

Those who reported greater uncertainty and less effectiveness in their risky choices during the

pre-exposure block were more likely to adjust their risk preferences following the exposure of

the choice preferences of the social other. These results support findings from Bixter et al. (2017)

that those expressing less confidence in their intertemporal decisions were more likely to adjust

their preferences to align with others following group interaction.

Our findings are consistent with recent research that has found a significant effect of

social influence on various types of judgments and decisions (e.g., Albert et al., 2013; Bixter &

Rogers, 2019; Bixter & Luhmann, 2020; Bixter et al., 2017; Brunette & Cabantous, 2015;

Calluso et al., 2017; Chein et al., 2011; Chung, Christopoulos, King-Casas, Ball, & Chiu, 2015;

Gardner & Steinberg, 2005; Gilman et al., 2014; Kedia et al., 2019; Knoll et al., 2015; McGarty
SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON RISKY CHOICE P a t e l | 38

et al., 1992; Moutoussis et al., 2016; O'Brien et al., 2011; Schwenke et al., 2017; Silva et al.,

2016; Simons-Morton et al., 2011; Smith et al., 2014; Thomas et al., 2022; Tsuruta & Inukai,

2018; Weigard, et al., 2014). A convergence effect has been demonstrated in intertemporal

decision-making, where individual group members’ preferences begin to align more following

collaborative interaction (e.g., Bixter et al., 2017; Bixter & Rogers, 2019). These prior findings

would predict that individual risk preferences should adjust to align with the preferences of

social others, which was what was found in the present thesis. Furthermore, prior research has

also found that behavioral social influence on decision-making can be found even if direct social

interaction does not occur, but participants are merely exposed to the decisional preferences of

others (Bixter & Luhmann, 2020; Chung et al., 2015; Gilman et al., 2014; Kedia et al., 2019;

Knoll, Leung, Foulkes, & Blakemore, 2017; Knoll et al., 2015; Suzuki, Jensen, Bossaerts, &

O’Doherty, 2016; Thomas et al., 2022). These results help demonstrate that social influence can

be a particularly relevant factor in the decision-making process, which means future models and

theories of individual decision-making should more directly incorporate the social context of

judgments and decisions.

An asymmetrical social influence effect was observed in the present study. Specifically,

exposure to the preferences of a risk-tolerant social other significantly increased risky choices.

Conversely, though exposure to the preferences of a risk-averse social other did lead to a reduced

preference for risky rewards, this reduction did not reach statistical significance. This asymmetry

effect was not hypothesized a priori, due to prior research in the intertemporal decision domain

that found social influence occurred similarly in both the patient and impatient direction (Bixter

et al., 2017). Though not hypothesized, the asymmetrical effect of social influence on risky

choice does have some prior support in the literature. A study by Knoll et al. (2017) replicated
SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON RISKY CHOICE P a t e l | 39

the findings of Knoll et al. (2015) on age-related differences in social influence on risk

perception by further investigating the direction of influence. They had 590 participants divided

into five age groups ranging from ages eight to fifty-four. Participants were asked to rate the

riskiness of everyday situations to collect initial risk perception. After providing their initial

ratings, participants were exposed to fictitious ratings from either group of teenagers or adults

and asked to rate the same situation again. They were then asked a third time to re-rate the

situation without social information. The study found that participants were more influenced to

moderate their risk perceptions by the group that was closest to their age. More specifically, they

note asymmetric trends that younger participants’ risk perceptions were strongly influenced by

teenagers who rated a situation as riskier, leading participants to align their ratings to the groups’

ratings. In contrast, adults were more influenced by the adult group when rating a situation as

less risky than the participant. Due to the current study’s sample being largely late adolescents or

younger adults, we also found that risky-related social information had a stronger influence on

individual decision preferences. It will be important for future research to replicate the current

study design with different age groups to see if different patterns of social influence are similarly

observed in the risky decision-making context.

Another recent study by Reiter, Suzuki, O'Doherty, Li, and Eppinger (2019) explored if

peer observation of a risky decision-making behavior affects risk preferences. They had 86

participants separated into two age groups (i.e., teenage and adult) and then had them complete a

risky choice task between a risky gamble and a safer guaranteed bet. After collecting initial

preferences, participants observed a confederate make either risk-seeking or risk-averse choices

on the same choices after being asked again. A strong risk contagion effect, which depicts how

individual risk preferences are modulated by observing and learning from other’s decisions, was
SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON RISKY CHOICE P a t e l | 40

reported by teenagers that observed risk-seeking preferences from their peers and not when

shown risk-averse preferences. These recent studies report a similar type of asymmetrical effect

under peer contexts which was not hypothesized a priori.

Reiter et al. (2019) also reported that high social network sizes were associated with a

stronger peer effect on risk preference while observing a risk-seeking other. This supports the

idea that people's social networks and contacts influence the risk preferences and behaviors of

individuals. Social influence on risky decision-making is particularly important for adolescents

who are still developing and are particularly impacted by their social environment (Yang et al.,

2016). Furthermore, the pull towards risk-tolerant preferences being stronger than the influence

of risk-averse behavior can have negative implications on behaviors. If this asymmetrical effect

holds up upon replication, it will have practical implications. For example, in situations that

involve risky behaviors with potential harmful outcomes, riskier individuals in small group

environments (e.g., teenage social circles) may impact the group to a greater extent than the more

cautious individuals.

Limitations and Future Directions

A limitation to this study is that the risky choice task was conducted with hypothetical

monetary choices. Most studies on risky decision-making, including the current study, use either

hypothetical scenarios or decisions with real but small consequences. Hypothetical decisions for

laboratory outcomes may not be similar to decisions made in the real-world as it excludes the

potential lack of economic incentive on real-world choices. Though prior research in the

intertemporal decision domain has generally found no difference when comparing participants’

choices for hypothetical vs. real rewards (e.g., Madden, Begotka, Raiff, & Kastern, 2003;
SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON RISKY CHOICE P a t e l | 41

Madden, et al., 2004), it will be important for a future study to replicate the present findings with

real rewards. It is also important to investigate the duration of social influence. In the current

study design, the blocks were completed sequentially within a single laboratory session, making

it difficult to infer if adjusted preferences would sustain over time. Conducting a study where

participants come back a week later and complete the same risky choices without social

information would be able to further investigate the duration of these social influence effects.

It would also be informative to see if these social influence effects extend to reporting of

actual risky behaviors. With the growth of risky digital payment systems like cryptocurrencies

being easily accessible for everyone, future research should investigate effects of social influence

on decisions regarding investing in various financial markets. Due to the asymmetrical social

influence effect on risky decision-making observed in the current thesis, future research should

also focus on potential peer influence effects for engaging in risky behaviors like driving under

the influence, consuming recreational or illicit drugs, practicing unsafe sex, or other activities

that may result in injuries. Finally, additional individual difference factors need to be explored

that are found to relate to susceptibility to behavioral social influence (similar to decisional

conflict regarding risky choices found in the current results). Identifying other individual

differences that render one susceptible to social influence would be helpful if attempting to

screen for at-risk individuals. The findings of this study provide insight into the impact of social

influence on risky choices and lay the groundwork for future research to investigate further

boundary conditions for the effects of the social environment on individual decision-making.
SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON RISKY CHOICE P a t e l | 42

References

Albert, D., Chein, J., & Steinberg, L. (2013). The teenage brain: Peer influences on adolescent

decision making. Current directions in psychological science, 22(2), 114-120.

Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of

judgments. Organizational influence processes, 58, 295-303.

Baumeister, R. F. (2007). Encyclopedia of social psychology (Vol. 1), (pp. 388-391). Sage.

Bickel, W. K., Odum, A. L., & Madden, G. J. (1999). Impulsivity and cigarette smoking: delay

discounting in current, never, and ex-smokers. Psychopharmacology, 146(4), 447-454.

Bixter, M. T., & Luhmann, C. C. (2020). Delay discounting in dyads and small groups: Group

leadership, status information, and actor-partner interdependence. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 86.

Bixter, M. T., & Rogers, W. A. (2019). Age‐related differences in delay discounting: Immediate

reward, reward magnitude, and social influence. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,

32(4), 471-484.

Bixter, M. T., Trimber, E. M., & Luhmann, C. C. (2017). Are intertemporal preferences

contagious? Evidence from collaborative decision making. Memory & Cognition, 45(5),

837-851.

Brunette, M., Cabantous, L., & Couture, S. (2015). Are individuals more risk and ambiguity

averse in a group environment or alone? Results from an experimental study. Theory and

Decision, 78(3), 357-376.

Calluso, C., Tosoni, A., Fortunato, G., & Committeri, G. (2017). Can you change my

preferences? Effect of social influence on intertemporal choice behavior. Behavioural

Brain Research, 330, 78-84.

SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON RISKY CHOICE P a t e l | 43

Ceccato, S., Kudielka, B. M., & Schwieren, C. (2016). Increased risk taking in relation to

chronic stress in adults. Frontiers in psychology, 6, 2036.

Chein, J., Albert, D., O’Brien, L., Uckert, K., & Steinberg, L. (2011). Peers increase adolescent

risk taking by enhancing activity in the brain’s reward circuitry. Developmental Science,

14(2), F1–F10.

Chung, D., Christopoulos, G. I., King-Casas, B., Ball, S. B., & Chiu, P. H. (2015). Social signals

of safety and risk confer utility and have asymmetric effects on observers' choices.

Nature neuroscience, 18(6), 912-916.

Daugherty, J. R., & Brase, G. L. (2010). Taking time to be healthy: Predicting health behaviors

with delay discounting and time perspective. Personality and Individual

differences, 48(2), 202-207.

Frey, R., Pedroni, A., Mata, R., Rieskamp, J., & Hertwig, R. (2017). Risk preference shares the

psychometric structure of major psychological traits. Science advances, 3(10).

Friedkin, N. E. (1999). Choice shift and group polarization. American Sociological Review, 856-

875.

Gächter, S., Johnson, E. J., & Herrmann, A. (2022). Individual-level loss aversion in riskless and

risky choices. Theory and Decision, 92(3), 599-624.

Gardner, M., & Steinberg, L. (2005). Peer influence on risk taking, risk preference, and risky

decision making in adolescence and adulthood: an experimental study. Developmental

Psychology, 41(4), 625.

Gibbons, F.X., & Buunk, B.P. (1999). Individual differences in social comparison: Development

of a scale of social comparison orientation. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 76(1), 129-142.

SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON RISKY CHOICE P a t e l | 44

Gilman, J. M., Curran, M. T., Calderon, V., Stoeckel, L. E., & Evins, A. E. (2014). Impulsive

social influence increases impulsive choices on a temporal discounting task in young

adults. PLoS One, 9(7).

Gonzalez, R., & Wu, G. (1999). On the shape of the probability weighting function. Cognitive

psychology, 38(1), 129-166.

Isenberg, D. J. (1986). Group polarization: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of

personality and social psychology, 50(6), 1141.

Jiang, S., & Ngien, A. (2020). The effects of Instagram use, social comparison, and self-esteem

on social anxiety: A survey study in Singapore. Social Media+ Society, 6(2).

Johnson, K. L., Bixter, M. T., & Luhmann, C. C. (2020). Delay discounting and risky choice:

Meta-analytic evidence regarding single-process theories. Judgment and Decision

Making, 15(3), 381–400.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk.

Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.

Kedia, G., Brohmer, H., Scholten, M., & Corcoran, K. (2019). Improving Self-Control: The

Influence of Role Models on Intertemporal Choices. Frontiers in psychology, 10, 1722.

Knoll, L. J., Leung, J. T., Foulkes, L., & Blakemore, S. J. (2017). Age-related differences in

social influence on risk perception depend on the direction of influence. Journal of

Adolescence, 60, 53-63.

Knoll, L. J., Magis-Weinberg, L., Speekenbrink, M., & Blakemore, S. J. (2015). Social influence

on risk perception during adolescence. Psychological Science, 26(5), 583-592.

Kyonka, E. G., & Schutte, N. S. (2018). Probability discounting and gambling: A meta‐

analysis. Addiction, 113(12), 2173-2181.

SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON RISKY CHOICE P a t e l | 45

Lane, S. D., Yechiam, E., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2006). Application of a computational decision

model to examine acute drug effects on human risk taking. Experimental and clinical

psychopharmacology, 14(2), 254-264.

Li, S. (2003). The role of expected value illustrated in decision-making under risk: Single-play

vs multiple-play. Journal of Risk Research, 6(2), 113-124

Madden, G. J., Begotka, A. M., Raiff, B. R., & Kastern, L. L. (2003). Delay discounting of real

and hypothetical rewards. Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology, 11(2), 139.

Madden, G. J., Raiff, B. R., Lagorio, C. H., Begotka, A. M., Mueller, A. M., Hehli, D. J., &

Wegener, A. A. (2004). Delay discounting of potentially real and hypothetical rewards:

II. Between-and within-subject comparisons. Experimental and clinical

psychopharmacology, 12(4), 251.

Markowitz, H. (1952). The utility of wealth. Journal of Political Economy, 60(2), 151-158.

McGarty, C., Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., David, B., & Wetherell, M. S. (1992). Group

polarization as conformity to the prototypical group member. British Journal of Social

Psychology, 31(1), 1-19.

Mishra, S. (2014). Decision-making under risk: Integrating perspectives from biology,

economics, and psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18(3), 280-307.

Monterosso, J., Ehrman, R., Napier, K. L., O'Brien, C. P., & Childress, A. R. (2001). Three

decision‐making tasks in cocaine‐dependent patients: Do they measure the same

construct? Addiction, 96(12), 1825-1837.

Moutoussis, M., Dolan, R. J., & Dayan, P. (2016). How people use social information to find out

what to want in the paradigmatic case of inter-temporal preferences. PLoS computational

biology, 12(7).
SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON RISKY CHOICE P a t e l | 46

O'Brien, L., Albert, D., Chein, J., & Steinberg, L. (2011). Adolescents prefer more immediate

rewards when in the presence of their peers. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(4),

747-753.

O’Connor, A.M. (1995). Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Medical Decision Making, 15,

25-30.

Petry, N. M. (2001). Delay discounting of money and alcohol in actively using alcoholics,

currently abstinent alcoholics, and controls. Psychopharmacology, 154(3), 243-250.

Polman, E., & Wu, K. (2020). Decision making for others involving risk: A review and meta-

analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology, 77.

Prelec, D., & Loewenstein, G. (1991). Decision making over time and under uncertainty: A

common approach. Management Science, 37(7), 770-786.

Rachlin, H., Logue, A. W., Gibbon, J., & Frankel, M. (1986). Cognition and behavior in studies

of choice. Psychological Review, 93(1), 33.

Ramirez, P. A., & Levine, D. S. (2013). A review of the certainty effect and influence of

information processing.

Redelmeier, D. A., & Tversky, A. (1992). On the Framing of Multiple Prospects. Psychological

Science, 3(3), 191–193.

Reiter, A. M., Suzuki, S., O'Doherty, J. P., Li, S. C., & Eppinger, B. (2019). Risk contagion by

peers affects learning and decision-making in adolescents. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: General, 148(9), 1494.

Ruggieri, S., Ingoglia, S., Bonfanti, R. C., & Coco, G. L. (2021). The role of online social

comparison as a protective factor for psychological wellbeing: A longitudinal study

during the COVID-19 quarantine. Personality and individual differences, 171.

SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON RISKY CHOICE P a t e l | 47

Sanfey, A. G., Loewenstein, G., McClure, S. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2006). Neuroeconomics: cross-

currents in research on decision-making. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(3), 108-116.

Schwenke, D., Dshemuchadse, M., Vesper, C., Bleichner, M. G., & Scherbaum, S. (2017). Let’s

decide together: Differences between individual and joint delay discounting. PloS

one, 12(4).

Silva, K., Chein, J., & Steinberg, L. (2016). Adolescents in peer groups make more prudent

decisions when a slightly older adult is present. Psychological science, 27(3), 322-330.

Simons-Morton, B. G., Ouimet, M. C., Zhang, Z., Klauer, S. E., Lee, S. E., Wang, J., Chen, R.,

Albert, P., & Dingus, T. A. (2011). The effect of passengers and risk-taking friends on

risky driving and crashes/near crashes among novice teenagers. Journal of Adolescent

Health, 49(6), 587-593.

Smith, A. R., Chein, J., & Steinberg, L. (2014). Peers increase adolescent risk taking even when

the probabilities of negative outcomes are known. Developmental psychology, 50(5),

1564.

Sokol-Hessner, P., & Rutledge, R. B. (2019). The psychological and neural basis of loss

aversion. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(1), 20-27.

Suzuki, S., Jensen, E. L., Bossaerts, P., & O’Doherty, J. P. (2016). Behavioral contagion during

learning about another agent’s risk-preferences acts on the neural representation of

decision-risk. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(14), 3755-3760.

Thau, S., Aquino, K., & Wittek, R. (2007). An extension of uncertainty management theory to

the self: The relationship between justice, social comparison orientation, and antisocial

work behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 250–258.

SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON RISKY CHOICE P a t e l | 48

Thomas, L., Lockwood, P. L., Garvert, M. M., & Balsters, J. H. (2022). Contagion of temporal

discounting value preferences in neurotypical and autistic adults. Journal of autism and

developmental disorders, 52(2), 700-713.

Toelch, U. & Dolan, R. J. (2015) Informational and Normative Influences in Conformity from a

Neurocomputational Perspective. Trends in cognitive sciences, 19(10), 579-589.

Tsuruta, M., & Inukai, K. (2018). How are individual time preferences aggregated in groups? A

laboratory experiment on intertemporal group decision-making. Frontiers in Applied

Mathematics and Statistics, 4, 43.

Ušto, M., Drače, S., & Hadžiahmetović, N. (2019). Replication of the" Asch Effect" in Bosnia

and Herzegovina: Evidence for the Moderating Role of Group Similarity in

Conformity. Psychological Topics, 28(3), 589-599.

Vadhan, N. P., Hart, C. L., Haney, M., van Gorp, W. G., & Foltin, R. W. (2009). Decision-

making in long-term cocaine users: Effects of a cash monetary contingency on Gambling

task performance. Drug and alcohol dependence, 102(1-3), 95-101.

Van Swol, L. M. (2009). Extreme members and group polarization. Social Influence, 4(3), 185-

199.

Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic

behavior. Princeton University Press.

Weber, B. J., & Chapman, G. B. (2005). Playing for peanuts: Why is risk seeking more common

for low-stakes gambles? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(1),

31-46.
SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON RISKY CHOICE P a t e l | 49

Weigard, A., Chein, J., Albert, D., Smith, A., & Steinberg, L. (2014). Effects of anonymous peer

observation on adolescents' preference for immediate rewards. Developmental

science, 17(1), 71-78.

Wiehler, A., & Peters, J. (2015). Reward-based decision making in pathological gambling: the

roles of risk and delay. Neuroscience Research, 90, 3-14.

Wittwer, A., Hulka, L. M., Heinimann, H. R., Vonmoos, M., & Quednow, B. B. (2016). Risky

decisions in a lottery task are associated with an increase of cocaine use. Frontiers in

Psychology, 7, 640.

Yang, Y. C., Boen, C., Gerken, K., Li, T., Schorpp, K., & Harris, K. M. (2016). Social

relationships and physiological determinants of longevity across the human life

span. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(3), 578-583.