IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/ncbuar/259431.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Beyond Risk Aversion: Eccentricity In Weighted Expected Utility

Author

Listed:
  • Hess, James D.
  • Holthausen Jr., Duncan M.

Abstract

In recent survey articles Bell and Farquhar and Machina have brought to the attention of decision scientists an alternative to the expected utility model called weighted expected utility. Developed by MacCrimmon, Chew and Fishburn, this is the simplest alternative to expected utility that permits an interpretation and rationalization of Allais' famous paradox. This paper identifies the two crucial parameters of weighted expected utility -- risk aversion and eccentricity -- by studying demand for insurance. The first of these is a measure that generalizes the Arrow-Pratt risk aversion measure of expected utility. The other, which we call a measure of eccentricity, has no counterpart in expected utility theory. Risk aversion is a concept with which decision analysts are quite comfortable, but eccentricity is simultaneously a new concept and one whose predictions are more subtle than those of risk aversion. In essence, eccentricity is a measure of how susceptible the decision maker is to Allais' paradox or how much he differs from expected utility maximization. Together risk aversion and eccentricity completely determine weighted expected utility and provide insight into the behavior of decision makers under uncertainty, behavior that can be quite different from that predicted by expected utility. Explanations are given of the impact of increases in risk aversion.and eccentricity on demand for insurance. Perhaps the most striking difference is that when the decision maker is eccentric, the standard analysis of decision trees by "averaging out and folding back" provides suboptimal decisions and the losses are magnified as the degree of eccentricity grows.

Suggested Citation

  • Hess, James D. & Holthausen Jr., Duncan M., 1988. "Beyond Risk Aversion: Eccentricity In Weighted Expected Utility," Department of Economics and Business - Archive 259431, North Carolina State University, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:ncbuar:259431
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.259431
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/259431/files/magr-northcarolinastate-014.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.259431?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gordon B. Hazen, 1987. "Note---Does Rolling Back Decision Trees Really Require the Independence Axiom?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(6), pages 807-809, June.
    2. Chew, Soo Hong, 1983. "A Generalization of the Quasilinear Mean with Applications to the Measurement of Income Inequality and Decision Theory Resolving the Allais Paradox," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 51(4), pages 1065-1092, July.
    3. Rothschild, Michael & Stiglitz, Joseph E., 1970. "Increasing risk: I. A definition," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 225-243, September.
    4. Irving H. LaValle & Kenneth R. Wapman, 1986. "Note---Rolling Back Decision Trees Requires the Independence Axiom!," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(3), pages 382-385, March.
    5. Machina, Mark J, 1987. "Choice under Uncertainty: Problems Solved and Unsolved," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 1(1), pages 121-154, Summer.
    6. Rothschild, Michael & Stiglitz, Joseph E., 1971. "Increasing risk II: Its economic consequences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 3(1), pages 66-84, March.
    7. David E. Bell & Peter H. Farquhar, 1986. "OR Forum—Perspectives on Utility Theory," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(1), pages 179-183, February.
    8. Fishburn, Peter C., 1983. "Transitive measurable utility," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 293-317, December.
    9. Schoemaker, Paul J H, 1982. "The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidence and Limitations," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 20(2), pages 529-563, June.
    10. Slovic, Paul & Lichtenstein, Sarah, 1983. "Preference Reversals: A Broader Perspective," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 596-605, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zvi Safra & Uzi Segal, 2005. "Are Universal Preferences Possible? Calibration Results for Non-Expected Utility Theories," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 633, Boston College Department of Economics.
    2. Marc Willinger, 1990. "La rénovation des fondements de l'utilité et du risque," Revue Économique, Programme National Persée, vol. 41(1), pages 5-48.
    3. Ormiston, Michael B. & E. Schlee, Edward, 1999. "Comparative statics tests between decision models under risk," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 145-166, October.
    4. Weber, Elke U., 1989. "A Behavioral Approach To Decision Making Under Uncertainty: Implications And Lessons For Expected Utility Theory," 1989 Quantifying Long Run Agricultural Risks and Evaluating Farmer Responses to Risk Meeting, April 9-12, 1989, Sanibel Island, Florida 271520, Regional Research Projects > S-232: Quantifying Long Run Agricultural Risks and Evaluating Farmer Responses to Risk.
    5. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.
    6. Bikhchandani, Sushil & Segal, Uzi, 2014. "Transitive regret over statistically independent lotteries," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 237-248.
    7. Yang, Jiping & Qiu, Wanhua, 2005. "A measure of risk and a decision-making model based on expected utility and entropy," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 164(3), pages 792-799, August.
    8. Kontek, Krzysztof, 2015. "Fanning-Out or Fanning-In? Continuous or Discontinuous? Estimating Indifference Curves Inside the Marschak-Machina Triangle using Certainty Equivalents," MPRA Paper 63965, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Yoram Amiel & Frank Cowell & Liema Davidovitz & Avraham Polovin, 2008. "Preference reversals and the analysis of income distributions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 30(2), pages 305-330, February.
    10. Trabelsi, Mohamed Ali, 2008. "Les nouveaux modèles de décision dans le risque et l’incertain : quel apport ? [The new models of decision under risk or uncertainty: What approach?]," MPRA Paper 83347, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2008.
    11. Coelho, Philip R. P. & McClure, James E., 1998. "Social context and the utility of wealth: Addressing the Markowitz challenge," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 305-314, November.
    12. Weiss, Michael D., 1984. "Risk Concepts In Agriculture: A Closer Look," 1984 Annual Meeting, August 5-8, Ithaca, New York 279010, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    13. Horowitz, I. & Thompson, P., 1995. "The sophisticated decision maker: All work and no pay?," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 1-11, February.
    14. Trabelsi, Mohamed Ali, 2006. "Les nouveaux modèles de décision dans le risque et l’incertain : quel apport ? [The new models of decision under risk or uncertainty : What approach?]," MPRA Paper 25442, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Harless, David W & Camerer, Colin F, 1994. "The Predictive Utility of Generalized Expected Utility Theories," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(6), pages 1251-1289, November.
    16. Karni, Edi & Schmeidler, David, 1990. "Utility Theory and Uncertainty," Foerder Institute for Economic Research Working Papers 275480, Tel-Aviv University > Foerder Institute for Economic Research.
    17. Dionne, Georges & Harrington, Scott, 2017. "Insurance and Insurance Markets," Working Papers 17-2, HEC Montreal, Canada Research Chair in Risk Management.
    18. Phillips Peter J. & Pohl Gabriela, 2018. "The Deferral of Attacks: SP/A Theory as a Model of Terrorist Choice when Losses Are Inevitable," Open Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 71-85, February.
    19. Christian Gollier & Alexander Muermann, 2010. "Optimal Choice and Beliefs with Ex Ante Savoring and Ex Post Disappointment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(8), pages 1272-1284, August.
    20. Ziv Bar-Shira, 1992. "Nonparametric Test of the Expected Utility Hypothesis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 74(3), pages 523-533.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:ncbuar:259431. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://poole.ncsu.edu/index-exp.php/economics/economics .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.