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.     

Analyzing the Demand for Deductible Insurance

This paper investigates aspects of insurance demand related to deductible insurance. In particular, an important issue concerning analysis of the optimal deductible level is resolved. A simple sufficient restriction on the pricing of insurance is given which ensures that the second order condition for choosing the expected utility maximizing deductible level is met for any risk averse decision maker. This restriction is stated and its sufficiency is demonstrated using the level of expected indemnification rather than the level of the deductible as the choice variable in the decision model.     

Risk seeking with diminishing marginal utility in a non-expected utility model

The present work takes place in the framework of a non-expected utility model under risk: the RDEU theory (Rank Dependent Expected Utility, first initiated by Quiggin under the denomination of Anticipated Utility), where the decision maker's behavior is characterized by two functionsu andf. Our first result gives a condition under which the functionu characterizes the decision maker's attitude towards wealth. Then, defining a decision maker as risk averter (respectively risk seeker) when he always prefers to any random variable its expected value (weak definition of risk aversion), the second result states that a decision maker who has an increasing marginal utility of wealth (a convex functionu) can be risk averse, if his functionf issufficiently below his functionu, hence if he is sufficientlypessimistic. Obviously, he can also be risk seeking with a diminishing marginal utility of wealth. This result is noteworthy because with a stronger definition of risk aversion/risk seeking, based on mean-preserving spreads, Chew, Karni, and Safra have shown that the only way to be risk averse (in their sense) in RDEU theory is to have, simultaneously, a concave functionu and a convex functionf.     

Ambiguity and risk taking in organizations

Kunreuther, Meszaros, and Hogarth (1993) argue that insurers are risk averse and ambiguity averse, and that they use cognitive reference points and constraints in making pricing decisions. They further claim that insurer ambiguity may be a factor that has a role in market failure at the industry level. Arguably, ambiguity may be an important aspect of decision behavior. In this article, research on managerial risk taking is reviewed with a focus on the relationship between ambiguity and risk taking. In particular, the effects of the organizational and institutional context are highlighted. It is argued that the political aspects of insurer decision behavior should be considered as well. Implications for further study and understanding of decision making are discussed.     

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.     

Indecisiveness aversion and preference for commitment

We present an axiomatic model of preferences over menus that is motivated by three assumptions. First, the decision maker is uncertain ex ante (i.e., at the time of choosing a menu) about her ex post (i.e., at the time of choosing an option within her chosen menu) preferences over options, and she anticipates that this subjective uncertainty will not resolve before the ex post stage. Second, she is averse to ex post indecisiveness (i.e., to having to choose between options that she cannot rank with certainty). Third, when evaluating a menu she discards options that are dominated (i.e., inferior to another option whatever her ex post preferences may be) and restricts attention to the undominated ones. Under these assumptions, the decision maker has a preference for commitment in the sense of preferring menus with fewer undominated alternatives. We derive a representation in which the decision maker’s uncertainty about her ex post preferences is captured by means of a subjective state space, which in turn determines which options are undominated in a given menu, and in which the decision maker fears, whenever indecisive, to choose an option that will turn out to be the worst (undominated) one according to the realization of her ex post preferences.     

The price for information about probabilities and its relation with risk and ambiguity

In this article, ambiguity attitude is measured through the maximum price a decision maker is willing to pay to know the probability of an event. Two problems are examined in which the decision maker faces an act: in one case, buying information implies playing a lottery, while, in the other case, buying information gives also the option to avoid playing the lottery. In both decision settings, relying on the Choquet expected utility model, we study how the decision maker??s risk and ambiguity attitudes affect the reservation price for ambiguity resolution. These effects are analyzed for different levels of ambiguity of the act. Operating instructions for the elicitation of the reservation price for ambiguity resolution in an experimental setting are provided at the end of the article.     

Risk-adjusted martingales and the design of “indifference” gambles

In the probability literature, a martingale is often referred to as a “fair game.” A martingale investment is a stochastic sequence of wealth levels, whose expected value at any future stage is equal to the investor’s current wealth. In decision theory, a risk neutral investor would therefore be indifferent between holding on to a martingale investment, and receiving its payoff at any future stage, or giving it up and maintaining his current wealth. But a risk-averse decision maker would not be indifferent between a martingale investment and his current wealth level, since he values uncertain deals less than their mean. A risk seeking decision maker, on the other hand, would readily accept a martingale investment in exchange for his current wealth, and would repeat this investment any number of times. These ideas lead us to introduce the notion of a “risk-adjusted martingale”; a stochastic sequence of wealth levels that a rational decision maker with any attitude toward risk would value constantly with time, and would be indifferent between receiving its pay-off at any future stage, or giving it up and maintaining his current wealth level. We show how to construct such risk-adjusted investments for any decision maker with a continuous monotonic utility function. The fundamental result we derive is that a pay-off structure of an investment (i) is a risk-adjusted martingale and (ii) can be represented by a lattice if and only if the pay-off functions are invariant transformations of the given utility function.     

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.     

Social comparison and risk taking behavior

This paper studies the effects of social comparison on risk taking behavior. In our theoretical framework, decision makers evaluate the consequences of their choices relative to both their own and their peers’ conditions. We test experimentally whether the position in the social ranking affects risk attitudes. Subjects interact in a simulated workplace environment where they perform a work task, receive possibly different wages, and then undertake a risky decision that may produce an extra gain. We find that social comparison matters for risk attitudes. Subjects are more risk averse in the presence of small social gain than social loss. In addition, risk aversion is decreasing in the size of the social gain.     

Greater Downside Risk Aversion

Although investors are concerned foremost with mean and variance, they are also sensitive to downside risk. In this paper, we introduce an index of downside risk aversion to distinguish risk aversion from higher-order aspects of risk preference, including prudence. We show that the index of downside risk aversion S increases with monotonic downside risk averse transformations of utility, thereby directly linking S to the definition of downside risk aversion introduced by Menezes et al. (American Economic Review, 70, 921–932, 1980). Although the index S applies equally to risk averse and risk loving decision makers, for a given positive degree of risk aversion, S is greater when the index of prudence is greater and vice versa.     

The Effectiveness of Assigned Goals in Complex Financial Decision Making and the Importance of Gender

Evidence suggests that men are more confident and less risk averse in financial decision making. Researchers did not address how men and women respond differently to goals in financial decision situations, however. In the present study, men set more challenging personal goals and risked more resources than women in a complex financial decision task. Men did not report higher self-efficacy versus women. As expected, gender interacted with assigned goals to predict self-efficacy, risk behavior, and personal goals. Results concur with recent financial decision research that suggests men and women differ in their use of externally-provided information such as assigned goals. Suggestions for future research are offered and limitations are discussed.     

Non-expected utility risk premiums: The cases of probability ambiguity and outcome uncertainty

This paper discusses two problems. (a) What happens to the conditional risk premium that a decision maker is willing to pay out of the middle prize in a lottery to avoid uncertainty concerning the middle prize outcome, when the probabilities of other prizes change? (b) What happens to the increase that a decision maker is willing to accept in the probability of an unpleasant outcome in order to avoid ambiguity concerning this probability, when this probability increases? We discuss both problems by using anticipated utility theory, and show that the same conditions on this functional predict behavioral patterns that are consistent both with a natural extension of the concept of diminishing risk aversion and with some experimental findings.     

Even Risk-Averters may Love Risk

A decision maker bets on the outcomes of a sequence of coin-tossings. At the beginning of the game the decision maker can choose one of two coins to play the game. This initial choice is irreversible. The coins can be biased and the player is uncertain about the nature of one (or possibly both) coin(s). If the player is an expected-utility maximizer, her choice of the coin will depend on different elements: the nature of the game (namely, whether she can observe the outcomes of the previous tosses before making her next decision), her utility function, the prior distribution on the bias of the coin. We will show that even a risk averter might optimally choose a riskier coin when learning is allowed. We will express most of our results in the language of stochastic orderings, allowing comparisons that are valid for large classes of utility functions.     

Learning-by-doing in an ambiguous environment

How well do revealed ambiguity preferences predict how people choose to seek new information about uncertain events? In an economics experiment, we apply a new instrument to measure ambiguity preferences, and in a later session observe to what extent the measure predicts the choice to receive costly information in a learning-by-doing game. Ambiguity averse subjects are more willing to pay to receive information, while risk averse subjects are not. Holding ambiguity preferences constant, risk averse subjects tend to perform worse than risk loving subjects. The returns to experimentation, especially for ambiguity averse subjects, suggest a not-well studied but important role that ambiguity preferences play in decision-making under uncertainty.     

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     

Strategic communication with reporting costs

A decision maker relies on information of parties affected by her decision. These parties try to influence her decision by selective disclosure of facts. As is well known from the literature, competition between the informed parties constrains their ability to manipulate information. We depart from this literature by introducing a cost to communicate. Our parties trade off their reporting cost against the effect on the decision. Some information is never revealed. In contrast to setups without communication costs, our decision maker can benefit by ex ante committing to an ex post suboptimal decision rule. Moreover, committing ex ante not to listen to one of the parties may also be beneficial for the decision maker.

     

Regret theory and risk attitudes

We examine risk attitudes under regret theory and derive analytical expressions for two components—the resolution and regret premiums—of the risk premium under regret theory. We posit that regret-averse decision makers are risk seeking (resp., risk averse) for low (resp., high) probabilities of gains and that feedback concerning the foregone option reinforces risk attitudes. We test these hypotheses experimentally and estimate empirically both the resolution premium and the regret premium. Our results confirm the predominance of regret aversion but not the risk attitudes predicted by regret theory; they also clarify how feedback affects attitudes toward both risk and regret.     

Willingness to Pay for Risk Reduction and Risk Aversion without the Expected Utility Assumption

By means of minimal assumptions on the individual preferences, I show that the Willingness To Pay (WTP) for both a FSD and SSD reduction of risk is the sum of a mean effect, a pure risk effect and a wealth effect. As a result, the WTP of a risk-averse decision maker may be lower than the WTP of a risk-neutral one, for a large class of individual preferences’ representation and a large class of risks.