An Experimental Test of Loss Aversion

This paper experimentally investigates a preference condition for loss aversion in the framework of cumulative prospect theory (CPT). We propose the concepts of absolute and relative loss premiums in order to measure the extent of loss aversion and to derive notions of increasing, constant, and decreasing loss aversion. While in only one of the 28 choice situations analyzed loss neutrality and loss seeking can be rejected, about 51% of all choices are loss averse and, due to the large extent of loss aversion revealed by these choices, the average loss premium is positive for most choice situations. Female subjects exhibit both a more frequent occurrence and a larger extent of loss aversion.     

Nondegenerate Intervals of No-Trade Prices for Risk Averse Traders

According to the local risk-neutrality theorem an agent who has the opportunity to invest in an uncertain asset does not buy it or sell it short iff its expected value is equal to its price, independently of the agent's attitude towards risk. Contrary to that it is shown that, in the context of expected utility theory with differentiable vNM utility function, but without the assumption of stochastic constant returns to scale, nondegenerate intervals of no-trade prices may exist. With a quasiconcave expected utility function they do if, and only if, the agent is risk averse of order one.     

Comparative Risk Sensitivity with Reference-Dependent Preferences

Experimental evidence suggests that individuals are risk averse over gains and risk seeking over losses (i.e., they have S-shaped utility functions in an expected utility setting) and that they are loss averse. Furthermore, the evidence leads to a single definition of S-shaped utility, but it has led to several alternative specifications of loss aversion. This paper characterizes the relations more S-shaped than and more loss averse than for a utility function, and in so doing arrives at a new definition of loss aversion based on average instead of marginal utility.     

Relative Risk Aversion: What Do We Know?

The relative risk aversion measure that represents the risk preferences of a decision maker depends on the outcome variable that is used as the argument of the utility function, and on the way that outcome variable is defined or measured. In addition, the relationship between any two such relative risk aversion measures is determined by the relationship between the corresponding outcome variables. These well-known facts are used to adjust several reported estimates of relative risk aversion so that those estimates can be directly compared with one another. After adjustment, the significant variation in the reported relative risk aversion measures for representative decision makers is substantially reduced. JEL Classification: D81     

Loss Aversion and Bargaining

We consider bargaining situations where two players evaluate outcomes with reference-dependent utility functions, analyzing the effect of differing levels of loss aversion on bargaining outcomes. We find that as with risk aversion, increasing loss aversion for a player leads to worse outcomes for that player in bargaining situations. An extension of Nash's axioms is used to define a solution for bargaining problems with exogenous reference points. Using this solution concept we endogenize the reference points into the model and find a unique solution giving reference points and outcomes that satisfy two reasonable properties, which we predict would be observed in a steady state. The resulting solution also emerges in two other approaches, a strategic (non-cooperative) approach using Rubinstein's (1982) alternating offers model and a dynamic approach in which we find that even under weak assumptions, outcomes and reference points converge to the steady state solution from any non-equilibrium state.     

Proper and Standard Risk Aversion in Two-Moment Decision Models

For linear distribution classes, mean-variance and expected utility specifications have been shown in the literature to be fully compatible when studying the concepts of risk aversion, prudence, risk vulnerability and temperance. This paper shows that such compatibility does hold for the concept of standard risk aversion but not for the concepts of proper risk aversion and proper prudence.Jel Classification: D81     

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.     

What is Loss Aversion?

A behavioral definition of loss aversion is proposed and its implications for original and cumulative prospect theory are analyzed. Original prospect theory is in agreement with the new loss aversion condition, and there utility is capturing all effects of loss aversion. In cumulative prospect theory loss aversion is captured by both the weighting functions and the utility function. Further, some restrictions apply for the weighting functions involved in the latter model.We are indebted to Michèle Cohen and Peter Wakker for helpful comments. The suggestions of an anonymous referee have improved the presentation of the paper.     

Endogenous risks and the risk premium

This note tries to correct a deficiency of the microeconomic literature on decision making under uncertainty. Indeed, when considering meaningful comparative statics results in situations where risks are at least partially controllable (endogenous), this literature has mostly relied upon the traditional Arrow-Pratt risk aversion functions and has paid very little attention to the definition of the risk premium. However when they defined the risk premium and the risk aversion functions, Arrow and Pratt considered only roulette gambles, i.e. risks totally exogenous to the individual. This note highlights the fact that several definitions of the risk premium may be proposed for endogenous risks. Two of them, already used in the literature, do not preserve the intuitively-appealing properties of the Arrow-Pratt risk premium. An alternative definition is then proposed. It is shown that this new definition of the risk premium applied to endogenous risks exhibits the properties generally admitted for roulette gambles.The three authors have benefitted from Ph. Caperaa's advice and from a referee's comments.     

The Utility of Gambling Reconsidered

The utility of gambling, which entails an intrinsic utility or disutility of risk, has been alluded to in the economics literature for over a century. This paper demonstrates that any utility of gambling almost unavoidably implies a violation of fundamental rationality properties, such as transitivity or stochastic dominance, for static choices between gambles. This result may explain why the utility of gambling, a phenomenon so widely discussed, has never been formalized in the economics literature. The model of this paper accommodates well-known deviations from expected utility, such as the Allais paradox and the coexistence of gambling and insurance, while minimally deviating from expected utility.     

Gender, Financial Risk, and Probability Weights

Women are commonly stereotyped as more risk averse than men in financial decision making. In this paper we examine whether this stereotype reflects gender differences in actual risk-taking behavior by means of a laboratory experiment with monetary incentives. Gender differences in risk taking may be due to differences in valuations of outcomes or in probability weights. The results of our experiment indicate that value functions do not differ significantly between men and women. Men and women differ in their probability weighting schemes, however. In general, women tend to be less sensitive to probability changes. They also tend to underestimate large probabilities of gains more strongly than do men. This effect is particularly pronounced when the decisions are framed in investment terms. As a result, women appear to be more risk averse than men in specific circumstances.     

The effect of the background risk in a simple chance improving decision model

We experimentally investigate the effect of an independent and exogenous background risk to initial wealth on subjects’ risk attitudes and explore an appropriate incentive mechanism when identical or similar tasks are repeated in an experiment. Taking a simple chance improving decision model under risk where the winning probabilities are negatively related to the potential gain, we find that such a background risk tends to make risk-averse subjects behave more risk aversely. Furthermore, we find that risk-averse subjects tend to show decreasing absolute risk aversion (DARA), and that a random round payoff mechanism (RRPM) would control the possible wealth effect. This suggests that RRPM would be a better incentive mechanism for an experiment where repetition of a task is used.

Just Who Are You Calling Risk Averse?

This paper estimates individual risk preferences based upon data that are generated by the same individuals acting in different institutions. The results show that the (estimated) numerical values of individuals' implied risk parameters are not stable within individuals across institutions. Furthermore, the ranking across subjects of the numerical values of individuals' implied risk parameters is not preserved across institutions.     

Independent social choice correspondences

A fixed agenda social choice correspondence on outcome set X maps each profile of individual preferences into a nonempty subset of X. If satisfies an analogue of Arrow's independence of irrelevant alternatives condition, then either the range of contains exactly two alternatives, or else there is at most one individual whose preferences have any bearing on . This is the case even if is not defined for any proper subset of X.     

The Value of a Statistical Life and the Coefficient of Relative Risk Aversion

Individuals’ risk preferences are estimated and employed in a variety of settings, notably including choices in financial, labor, and product markets. Recent work, especially in financial economics, provides estimates of individuals’ coefficients of relative risk aversion (R’s) in excess of one, and often significantly higher. However, it can be shown that high R’s imply equally high values for the income elasticity of the value of a statistical life. Yet estimates of this elasticity, derived from labor and product markets, are in the range of 0.5 to 0.6. Furthermore, it turns out that even an R below one is difficult to reconcile with these elasticity estimates. Thus, there appears to be an important (additional) anomaly involving individuals’ risk-taking behavior in different market settings.JEL Classification: D80, G11, G12, I10, J17     

Myopic risk-seeking: The impact of narrow decision bracketing on lottery play

In two experiments conducted with low-income participants, we find that individuals are more likely to buy state lottery tickets when they make several purchase decisions one-at-a-time, i.e. myopically, than when they make one decision about how many tickets to purchase. These results extend earlier findings showing that “broad bracketing” of decisions encourages behavior consistent with expected value maximization. Additionally, the results suggest that the combination of myopic decision making and the “peanuts effect”—greater risk seeking for low stakes than high stakes gambles—can help explain the popularity of state lotteries.

Risk Aversion when Gains are Likely and Unlikely: Evidence from a Natural Experiment with Large Stakes

In the television show Deal or No Deal a contestant is endowed with a sealed box, which potentially contains a large monetary prize. In the course of the show the contestant learns more information about the distribution of possible monetary prizes inside her box. Consider two groups of contestants, who learned that the chances of their boxes containing a large prize are 20% and 80% correspondingly. Contestants in both groups receive qualitatively similar price offers for selling the content of their boxes. If contestants are less risk averse when facing unlikely gains, the price offer is likely to be more frequently rejected in the first group than in the second group. However, the fraction of rejections is virtually identical across two groups. Thus, contestants appear to have identical risk attitudes over (large) gains of low and high probability.      

On the intensity of downside risk aversion

The degree of downside risk aversion (or equivalently prudence) is so far usually measured by . We propose here another measure, , which has specific and interesting local and global properties. Some of these properties are to a wide extent similar to those of the classical measure of absolute risk aversion, which is not always the case for . It also appears that the two measures are not mutually exclusive. Instead, they seem to be rather complementary as shown through an economic application dealing with a simple general equilibrium model of savings.

Effects of Risk and Time Preference and Expected Longevity on Demand for Medical Tests

Despite their conceptual importance, the effects of time preference, expected longevity, uncertainty, and risk aversion on behavior have not been analyzed empirically. We use data from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) to assess the role of risk and time preference, expected longevity, and education on demand for three measures used for early detection of breast and cervical cancer—regular breast self-exams, mammograms, and Pap smears. We find that individuals with a higher life expectancy and lower time preference are more likely to undergo cancer screening. Less risk averse individuals tend to be more likely to undergo testing.