Uncertainty aversion and aversion to increasing uncertainty

According to the original Ellsberg (1961) examples there is uncertainty version if the decision maker prefers to bet on an urn of known composition rather than on an urn of unknown composition. According to another definition (Schmeidler, 1989), there is uncertainty aversion if any convex combination of two acts is preferred to the least favorable of these acts. We show that these two definitions differ: while the first one truly refers to uncertainty aversion, the second one refers to aversion to increasing uncertainty. Besides, with reference to Choquet Expected Utility theory, uncertainty aversion means that there exists the core of a capacity, while aversion to increasing uncertainty means that the capacity is convex. Consequently, aversion to increasing uncertainty implies uncertainty aversion, but the opposite does not hold. We also show that a completely analogous situation holds for the case of risk and we define a set of risk and uncertainty premiums according to the previous analysis.     

On probabilities and loss aversion

This paper reviews the most common approaches that have been adopted to analyze and describe loss aversion under prospect theory. Subsequently, it is argued that loss aversion is a property of observable choice behavior and two new definitions of loss averse behavior are advocated. Under prospect theory, the new properties hold if the commonly used utility based measures of loss aversion are corrected by a probability based measure of loss aversion and their product exceeds 1. It is shown that prominent parametric families of weighting functions, while successful in accommodating empirical findings on probabilistic risk attitudes, may not fit well with the theoretical implications of the new loss averse behavior conditions.     

Decreasing absolute risk aversion, prudence and increased downside risk aversion

Downside risk increases have previously been characterized as changes preferred by all decision makers u(x) with u????(x) > 0. For risk averse decision makers, u????(x) > 0 also defines prudence. This paper finds that downside risk increases can also be characterized as changes preferred by all decision makers displaying decreasing absolute risk aversion (DARA) since those changes involve random variables that have equal means. Building on these findings, the paper proposes using ??more decreasingly absolute risk averse?? or ??more prudent?? as alternative definitions of increased downside risk aversion. These alternative definitions generate a transitive ordering, while the existing definition based on a transformation function with a positive third derivative does not. Other properties of the new definitions of increased downside risk aversion are also presented.     

Experimental Cournot oligopoly and inequity aversion

This paper explores the role of inequity aversion as an explanation for observed behavior in experimental Cournot oligopolies. We show that inequity aversion can change the nature of the strategic interaction: quantities are strategic substitutes for sufficiently asymmetric output levels but strategic complements otherwise. We find that inequity aversion can explain why: (i) some experiments result in higher than Cournot–Nash production levels while others result in lower, (ii) collusion often occurs with only two players whereas with three or more players market outcomes are very close to Cournot–Nash, and (iii) players often achieve equal profits in asymmetric Cournot oligopoly.     

On the definition of risk aversion

Two definitions of risk aversion have recently been proposed for non-expected utility theories of choice under uncertainty: the former refers the measure of risk aversion (Montesano 1985, 1986 and 1988) directly to the risk premium (i.e. to the difference between the expected value of the action under consideration and its certainty equivalent); the latter defines risk aversion as a decreasing preference for an increasing risk (introduced as mean preserving spreads) (Chew, Karni and Safra 1987, Machina 1987, Röell 1987, Yaari 1987).When the von Neumann-Morgenstern utility function exists both these definitions indicate an agent as a risk averter if his or her utility function is concave. Consequently, the two definitions are equivalent. However, they are no longer equivalent when the von Neumann-Morgenstern utility function does not exist and a non-expected utility theory is assumed. Examples can be given which show how the risk aversion of the one definition can coexist with the risk attraction of the other. Indeed the two definitions consider two different questions: the risk premium definition specifically concerns risk aversion, while the mean preserving spreads definition concerns the increasing (with risk) risk aversion.The mean preserving spreads definition of risk aversion, i.e. the increasing (with risk) risk aversion, requires a special kind of concavity for the preference function (that the derivatives with respect to probabilities are concave in the respective consequences). The risk premium definition of local risk aversion requires that the probability distribution dominates on the average the distribution of the derivatives of the preference function with respect to consequences. Besides, when the local measure of the first order is zero, there is risk aversion according to the measure of the second order if the preference function is concave with respect to consequences.Yaari's (1969) measure of risk aversion is closely linked to the r.p. measure of the second order. Its sign does not indicate risk aversion (if positive) or attraction (if negative) when the measure of the first order is not zero (i.e., in Yaari's language, when subjective odds differ from the market odds).     

Risk aversion,downside risk aversion,and the transition to entrepreneurship

In this paper, we discuss the transition from secure employment to risky self-employment (entrepreneurship) caused by a small increase in wealth. Building on the apportioning risk literature, we prove that the transition from secure employment to risky entrepreneurship is based on a measure of the difference between the strength of downside risk aversion and the strength of risk aversion. This result highlights the idea that using the behavioral approach of risky lotteries to study entrepreneurship can produce different results from the traditional economic theory of entrepreneurship, which can have policy implications that must be considered with caution.

     

Measures of risk aversion with expected and nonexpected utility

In the expected utility case, the risk-aversion measure is given by the Arrow-Pratt index. Three proposals of a risk-aversion measure for the nonexpected utility case are examined. The first one sets “the second derivative of the acceptance frontier as a measure of local risk aversion.” The second one takes into account the concavity in the consequences of the partial derivatives of the preference function with respect to probabilities. The third one measures risk aversion through the ratio between the risk premium and the standard deviation of the lottery. The third proposal catches the main feature of risk aversion, while the other two proposals are not always in accordance with the same crude definition of risk aversion, by which there is risk aversion when an agent prefers to get the expected value of a lottery rather than to participate in it.     

Inequality aversion and antisocial punishment

Antisocial punishment—punishment of pro-social cooperators—has shown to be detrimental for the efficiency of informal punishment mechanisms in public goods games. The motives behind antisocial punishment acts are not yet well understood. This article shows that inequality aversion predicts antisocial punishment in public goods games with punishment. The model by Fehr and Schmidt (Q J Econ 114(3): 817–868, 1999) allows to derive conditions under which antisocial punishment occurs. With data from three studies on public goods games with punishment I evaluate the predictions. A majority of the observed antisocial punishment acts are not compatible with inequality aversion. These results suggest that the desire to equalize payoffs is not a major determinant of antisocial punishment.     

On risk aversion,classical demand theory,and KM preferences

Building on Kihlstrom and Mirman (Journal of Economic Theory, 8(3), 361–388, 1974)’s formulation of risk aversion in the case of multidimensional utility functions, we study the effect of risk aversion on optimal behavior in a general consumer’s maximization problem under uncertainty. We completely characterize the relationship between changes in risk aversion and classical demand theory. We show that the effect of risk aversion on optimal behavior depends on the income and substitution effects. Moreover, the effect of risk aversion is determined not by the riskiness of the risky good, but rather the riskiness of the utility gamble associated with each decision.     

Risk and risk aversion for state-dependent utility

This paper analyses risk and risk aversion in the state-dependent utility model, which is useful for modelling health or life insurance purchase. We use Karni's (1983) definition of risk aversion, and extend the class of risks to which it can be applied.Research supported by the ESRC postdoctoral fellowship scheme. I would like to thank Jerry Nordquist for arousing my interest in this subject. For helpful comments on an earlier draft I am grateful to an anonymous referee and the editor of this journal.     

Joint measurement of risk aversion,prudence, and temperance

Risk aversion—but also the higher-order risk preferences of prudence and temperance—are fundamental concepts in the study of economic decision making. We propose a method to jointly measure the intensity of risk aversion, prudence, and temperance. Our theoretical approach is to define risk compensations of different orders, and in an experiment we elicit these compensations with a price list technique. We find evidence for risk aversion, prudence, and temperance. These traits correlate within subjects. The compensations elicited for prudence are significantly larger than those for risk aversion and temperance. In contrast to commonly used utility functions, prospect theory can predict this behavioral pattern. In our experiment, risk-averse, risk-loving, and risk-neutral subjects are prudent. This supports a recent theoretical observation that prudence may be a more universal trait than previously realized.     

The risk aversion measure without the independence axiom

The risk premium (conveniently normalized) is defined as the measure of risk aversion. This measure does not require any relevant assumption in the theory of choice under uncertainty except the existence of a certainty equivalent. In particular, the independence axiom is not required. The measure of risk aversion of an action is provided not only for the case with one commodity and two consequences but also for the case with many commodities and consequences. The measure of mean risk aversion of all actions with given consequences is introduced and the local measure of risk aversion is obtained by making all these consequences approach the consequence under consideration. This measure is demonstrated to be zero when the von Neumann-Morgenstern utility function exists. In this case a measure of risk aversion of the second order is introduced, which turns out to be equal to the Arrow-Pratt absolute index when there is only one commodity and similar to the generalized measures proposed by several authors when there are many commodities and two consequences.Helpful comments by I. Gilboa and suggestions by the referee are gratefully acknowledged.     

Positivity of bid-ask spreads and symmetrical monotone risk aversion*

A usual argument in finance refers to no arbitrage opportunities for the positivity of the bid-ask spread. Here we follow the decision theory approach and show that if positivity of the bid-ask spread is identified with strong risk aversion for an expected utility market-maker, this is no longer true for a rank-dependent expected utility one. For such a decision-maker only a very weak form of risk aversion is required, a result which seems more in accordance with his actual behavior. We conclude by showing that the no-trade interval result of Dow and Werlang (1992a) remains valid for a rank-dependent expected utility market-maker merely exhibiting this weak form of risk aversion.     

Causes of ambiguity aversion: Known versus unknown preferences

Ambiguity aversion appears to have subtle psychological causes. Curley, Yates, and Abrams found that the fear of negative evaluation by others (FNE) increases ambiguity aversion. This paper introduces a design in which preferences can be private information of individuals, so that FNE can be avoided entirely. Thus, we can completely control for FNE and other social factors, and can determine exactly to what extent ambiguity aversion is driven by such social factors. In our experiment ambiguity aversion, while appearing as commonly found in the presence of FNE, disappears entirely if FNE is eliminated. Implications are discussed.      

Risk aversion over finite domains

We investigate risk attitudes when the underlying domain of payoffs is finite and the payoffs are, in general, not numerical. In such cases, the traditional notions of absolute risk attitudes, that are designed for convex domains of numerical payoffs, are not applicable. We introduce comparative notions of weak and strong risk attitudes that remain applicable. We examine how they are characterized within the rank-dependent utility model, thus including expected utility as a special case. In particular, we characterize strong comparative risk aversion under rank-dependent utility. This is our main result. From this and other findings, we draw two novel conclusions. First, under expected utility, weak and strong comparative risk aversion are characterized by the same condition over finite domains. By contrast, such is not the case under non-expected utility. Second, under expected utility, weak (respectively: strong) comparative risk aversion is characterized by the same condition when the utility functions have finite range and when they have convex range (alternatively, when the payoffs are numerical and their domain is finite or convex, respectively). By contrast, such is not the case under non-expected utility. Thus, considering comparative risk aversion over finite domains leads to a better understanding of the divide between expected and non-expected utility, more generally, the structural properties of the main models of decision-making under risk.

     

How much ambiguity aversion?

Experimental results on the Ellsberg paradox typically reveal behavior that is commonly interpreted as ambiguity aversion. The experiments reported in the current paper find the objective probabilities for drawing a red ball that make subjects indifferent between various risky and uncertain Ellsberg bets. They allow us to examine the predictive power of alternative principles of choice under uncertainty, including the objective maximin and Hurwicz criteria, the sure-thing principle, and the principle of insufficient reason. Contrary to our expectations, the principle of insufficient reason performed substantially better than rival theories in our experiment, with ambiguity aversion appearing only as a secondary phenomenon.     

Risk aversion in bargaining: An experimental study

This paper reports the results of three experiments designed to test the predictions of the principal game-theoretic models of bargaining concerning the influence of risk aversion on bargaining outcomes. These models predict that risk aversion will be disadvantageous in bargaining except in situations in which potential agreements are lotteries with a positive probability of being worse than disagreement. The experimental results support the models' predictions. However, in the range of payoffs studied here, the effects due to risk aversion may be smaller than some of the focal point effects observed in previous experiments. Implications for further theoretical and experimental work are considered.     

Ambiguity aversion and the propensities for self-insurance and self-protection

Two models of ambiguity preferences that permit comparative statics analysis of greater ambiguity aversion yield definite predictions concerning propensities for self-insurance and self-protection: The levels of both activities that are optimal for an ambiguity-averse decision maker are higher in the presence of ambiguity than in its absence, and demands for both activities increase with greater ambiguity aversion. The reason is that, at levels optimal for one decision maker, an increase in either activity results in a mean-preserving contraction in the distribution of expected utility in the presence of ambiguity, which is valuable to anyone with the same risk preferences who is more ambiguity averse.     

Risk aversion in expected intertemporal discounted utilities bandit problems

We consider a situation where an individual is facing an uncertain situation, but may costly alter his knowledge of the uncertainties. We study in this context how risk aversion may modify the individual search behavior. We consider a one-armed bandit problem (where one arm is safe and the other is risky) and study how the agent risk aversion can change the sequence of arms selected. The main result is that when the utility function is more concave, the agent has more chances to select the safe arm. We also discuss how search is affected by risk aversion.     

Ambiguity aversion in the small and in the large for weighted linear utility

The widely observed preference for lotteries involving precise rather than vague of ambiguous probabilities is called ambiguity aversion. Ambiguity aversion cannot be predicted or explained by conventional expected utility models. For the subjectively weighted linear utility (SWLU) model, we define both probability and payoff premiums for ambiguity, and introduce alocal ambiguity aversion function a(u) that is proportional to these ambiguity premiums for small uncertainties. We show that one individual's ambiguity premiums areglobally larger than another's if and only if hisa(u) function is everywhere larger. Ambiguity aversion has been observed to increase 1) when the mean probability of gain increases and 2) when the mean probability of loss decreases. We show that such behavior is equivalent toa(u) increasing in both the gain and loss domains. Increasing ambiguity aversion also explains the observed excess of sellers' over buyers' prices for insurance against an ambiguous probability of loss.