Risk aversion in the small and in the large: Calibration results for betweenness functionals

A reasonable level of risk aversion with respect to small gambles leads to a high, and absurd, level of risk aversion with respect to large gambles. This was demonstrated by Rabin (Econometrica 68:1281–1292, 2000) for expected utility theory. Later, Safra and Segal (Econometrica, 2008) extended this result by showing that similar arguments apply to many non-expected utility theories, provided they are Gateaux differentiable. In this paper we drop the differentiability assumption and by restricting attention to betweenness theories we show that much weaker conditions are sufficient for the derivation of similar calibration results.

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.

Conditional payments and self-protection

Self-protection can be financed either by upfront payments or by conditional payments (or contingent fees) in which individuals pay a provider only when a favorable outcome is realized. We find that, from the vantage point of a risk-averse individual, conditional payments welfare dominate upfront payments in the state-independent framework, but upfront payments welfare dominate conditional payments in the state-dependent framework. Moreover, more risk aversion always implies more self-protection under conditional payments, for both state-independent and state-dependent frameworks. In contrast, it has been previously argued that more risk aversion does not necessarily imply more self-protection under upfront payments.

The ostrich effect: Selective attention to information

We develop and test a model which links information acquisition decisions to the hedonic utility of information. Acquiring and attending to information increases the psychological impact of information (an impact effect), increases the speed of adjustment for a utility reference-point (a reference-point updating effect), and affects the degree of risk aversion towards randomness in news (a risk aversion effect). Given plausible parameter values, the model predicts asymmetric preferences for the timing of resolution of uncertainty: Individuals should monitor and attend to information more actively given preliminary good news but “put their heads in the sand” by avoiding additional information given adverse prior news. We test for such an “ostrich effect” in a finance context, examining the account monitoring behavior of Scandinavian and American investors in two datasets. In both datasets, investors monitor their portfolios more frequently in rising markets than when markets are flat or falling.

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.

Risk preferences and changes in background risk

We present two theorems that yield necessary and sufficient conditions for first- and second-degree stochastic dominance deteriorations of background risk to increase risk aversion with respect to foreground risk. We require that any change in a foreground risk that is undesirable remains so after a background risk changes in a way that is either unfair, undesirable in the sense of reducing expected utility, or undesirable in the sense of increasing expected marginal utility. Our results thus characterize utility functions that are, respectively, vulnerable, proper, or standard with respect to changes in background risk.

Paying for permanence: Public preferences for contaminated site cleanup

We use conjoint choice questions to investigate the preferences of people in four cities in Italy for income and future/permanent mortality risk reductions delivered by contaminated site remediation policies. The VSL is €5.6 million for an immediate risk reduction. If the risk reduction takes place 20 years from now, the implied VSL is €1.26 million. Respondents’ implicit discount rate is 7%. The VSL depends on respondent characteristics, familiarity with contaminated sites, concern about the health effects of exposure to toxicants, having a family member with cancer, perceived usefulness of public programs and beliefs about the goals of government remediation programs.

Self-protection and insurance with interdependencies

We study optimal investment in self-protection of insured individuals when they face interdependencies in the form of potential contamination from others. If individuals cannot coordinate their actions, then the positive externality of investing in self-protection implies that, in equilibrium, individuals underinvest in self-protection. Limiting insurance coverage through deductibles or selling “at-fault” insurance can partially internalize this externality and thereby improve individual and social welfare.

Adverse selection,moral hazard and propitious selection

We propose a simple model with preference-based adverse selection and moral hazard that formalizes the cherry picking/propitious selection argument. This argument assumes that individuals differ in risk aversion, potentially resulting in more risk averse agents buying more insurance while being less risky. The propitious selection argument is summarized by two properties: regularity (more risk averse agents exert more caution) and single-crossing (more risk averse agents have a higher willingness to pay for insurance). We show that these assumptions are incompatible with a pooling equilibrium, and that they do not imply a negative correlation between risk and insurance coverage at equilibrium.

Whom should we believe? Aggregation of heterogeneous beliefs

We examine the collective risk attitude of a group with heterogeneous beliefs. We prove that the wealth-dependent probability distribution used by the representative agent is biased in favor of the beliefs of the more risk tolerant consumers. Moreover, increasing disagreement on the state probability raises the state probability of the representative agent. It implies that when most disagreements are concentrated in the tails of the distribution, the perceived collective risk is magnified. This can help to solve the equity premium puzzle. We show that the trade volume and the equity premium are positively correlated.

Perception of own death risk

Individuals’ perception of their own road-traffic and overall mortality risks are examined in this paper. Perceived risk is compared with the objective risk of the respondents’ peers, i.e. their own gender and age group, and the results suggest that individuals’ risk perception of their own risk is biased. For road-traffic risk we obtain similar results to what have been found previously in the literature, overassessment and underassessment among low- and high-risk groups, respectively. For overall risk we find that all risk groups underestimate their risk. The results also indicate that men's risk bias is larger than women’s.

Gender,risk and stereotypes

This paper reports results from an economic experiment where respondents are asked to make choices between risky outcomes for themselves and others. We investigate whether subjects’ own risk preferences and gender stereotypes are reflected in the predictions they make for the risk preferences of others and the way this occurs. When predicting other people’s risk preferences, the respondents tend to use a combination of their own risk preferences and stereotypes. Moreover, when making risky choices for others, the respondents generally use a combination of their own risk preferences and their average predicted risk preference of the targeted group.

Learning from mistakes: What do inconsistent choices over risk tell us?

We implement a risk experiment that allows for judgment errors to investigate who makes mistakes and whether it matters. The experiments are conducted with a random sample of the adult population in Rwanda, and data on financial decisions are collected. We find a high proportion of inconsistent choices, with over 50% of the participants making at least one mistake. Importantly, errors are informative. While risk aversion alone does not explain financial decisions, risk aversion and inconsistent choices interact in significant and sensible ways. As we would expect, risk-averse individuals are more likely to belong to a savings group and less likely to take out an informal loan. For those more likely to make mistakes, however, as they become more risk averse, they are less likely to belong to a savings group and more likely to take up informal credit, suggesting that mistakes correlate with less than optimal behavior.

Statistical vs. identified lives in benefit-cost analysis

Evaluation of projects that affect mortality risk usually assumes that risk changes are small and similar across individuals. In reality, risks differ among individuals and information about risk heterogeneity determines the extent to which affected lives are “statistical” or “identified” and influences the outcome of benefit-cost analysis (BCA). The effects of information about risk heterogeneity on BCA depend on, inter alia, whether information concerns heterogeneity of baseline or change in risk and whether valuation uses compensating or equivalent variation. BCA does not systematically favor identified over statistical lives. We suggest some political factors that may explain the apparent public bias.

Environmental disasters as risk regulation catalysts? The role of Bhopal,Chernobyl, Exxon Valdez,Love Canal,and Three Mile Island in shaping U.S. environmental law

Unexpected events such as environmental catastrophes capture wide public attention. Soon after five major shocks—Three Mile Island, Love Canal, Bhopal, Chernobyl, and the Exxon Valdez oil spill—Congress voted on new risk regulation. This paper conducts an event study to test whether individual congressional representatives were “shocked” by these environmental disasters into increasing their probability of voting in favor of risk legislation. On average, representatives were less likely to vote in favor of bills tied to these five events. Significant heterogeneity in representatives’ responses to these shocks is documented. Liberal Northeast representatives were most likely to increase their pro-environment voting in the aftermath of these shocks.

Individual decision-making experiments with risk and intertemporal choice

Many decisions require tradeoffs over time and in the presence of risk. To examine interactions between risk and intertemporal effects we developed a laboratory experiment. In the experiment, subjects choose between payoffs that take place at different points in time. We find that very few subjects are consistently risk averse or risk loving. Instead, we find that subjects are less patient in the presence of risk. We also find that increased risk decreases subjects’ patience levels. However, we do not find evidence that the effect of risk on the intertemporal decision depends on the length of the temporal delay.

The value of mortality risk reductions in Delhi,India

We interviewed commuters in Delhi, India, to estimate their willingness to pay (WTP) to reduce their risk of dying in road traffic accidents in three scenarios that mirror the circumstances under which traffic fatalities occur in Delhi. The WTP responses are internally valid: WTP increases with the size of the risk reduction, income, and exposure to road traffic risks, as measured by length of commute and whether the respondent drives a motorcycle. As a result, the value of a statistical life (VSL) varies across groups of beneficiaries. For the most highly-exposed individuals the VSL is about 150,000 Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) dollars.

Time discounting: Declining impatience and interval effect

Most studies have not distinguished delays from intervals, so that whether the declining impatience really holds has been an open question. We conducted an experiment that explicitly distinguishes between them, and confirmed it at short delay such as less than an 8-week delay. This implies that people make dynamically inconsistent plans. We also found the interval effect that the time discount rate decreases with prolonged intervals. We show that the interval and the magnitude effects are caused because intertemporal choice is made partially based on the differential in reward amount, while Weber’s Law explains neither the delay nor the interval effects sufficiently.

One-reason decision-making: Modeling violations of expected utility theory

People violate expected utility theory and this has been traditionally modeled by augmenting its weight-and-add framework by nonlinear transformations of values and probabilities. Yet individuals often use one-reason decision-making when making court decisions or choosing cellular phones, and institutions do the same when creating rules for traffic safety or fair play in sports. We analyze a model of one-reason decision-making, the priority heuristic, and show that it simultaneously implies common consequence effects, common ratio effects, reflection effects, and the fourfold pattern of risk attitude. The preferences represented by the priority heuristic satisfy some standard axioms. This work may provide the basis for a new look at bounded rationality.