IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mse/cesdoc/12063.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Subjective risk and disappointment

Author

Listed:

Abstract

If an investor does care for utilities –and not for monetary outcomes– stochastic dominances should be expressed in terms of utility units ("utils"). If so, any "rational" investor may be characterized by an elementary utility function –called canonical utility function– which is such that the partial weak order induced by stochastic dominance over utils is as "close" to the weak order of preferences as possible. As a consequence, the random utilities of the available prospects do not violate the second-order stochastic dominance property. Substituting utils for monetary units leads to substitute "subjective" risk for "objective" risk à la Rothschild and Stiglitz (1970). A weakened independence axiom may them be set over comparable prospects, i.e. those which exhibit the same canonical expected utility. This leads to a fully choice-based theory of disappointment. The functional is lottery-dependent (Becker and Sarin 1987). When constant marginal utility is assumed, it is but the opposite to a convex measure of risk (Föllmer and Schied 2002). It may be viewed as a theoretical justification for choosing this measure of risk

Suggested Citation

  • Thierry Chauveau, 2012. "Subjective risk and disappointment," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 12063, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    • Handle: RePEc:mse:cesdoc:12063
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jia, Jianmin & Dyer, James S & Butler, John C, 2001. "Generalized Disappointment Models," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 59-78, January.
    2. Gul, Faruk, 1991. "A Theory of Disappointment Aversion," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(3), pages 667-686, May.
    3. Thierry Chauveau & Nicolas Nalpas, 2010. "Disappointment Models: an axiomatic approach," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 10102, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    4. Jianmin Jia & James S. Dyer, 1996. "A Standard Measure of Risk and Risk-Value Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(12), pages 1691-1705, December.
    5. Ulrich Schmidt, 2001. "Lottery Dependent Utility: a Reexamination," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 35-58, February.
    6. Grant, Simon & Kajii, Atsushi, 1998. "AUSI expected utility: An anticipated utility theory of relative disappointment aversion," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 277-290, November.
    7. Philippe Delquié & Alessandra Cillo, 2006. "Disappointment without prior expectation: a unifying perspective on decision under risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 197-215, December.
    8. van Dijk, Wilco W. & Zeelenberg, Marcel & van der Pligt, Joop, 2003. "Blessed are those who expect nothing: Lowering expectations as a way of avoiding disappointment," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 505-516, August.
    9. Joao L. Becker & Rakesh K. Sarin, 1987. "Lottery Dependent Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(11), pages 1367-1382, November.
    10. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    11. David E. Bell, 1985. "Disappointment in Decision Making Under Uncertainty," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(1), pages 1-27, February.
    12. Chris Starmer, 2000. "Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 332-382, June.
    13. Graham Loomes & Robert Sugden, 1986. "Disappointment and Dynamic Consistency in Choice under Uncertainty," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 53(2), pages 271-282.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Stefan Rass & Sandra König & Stefan Schauer, 2022. "Games over Probability Distributions Revisited: New Equilibrium Models and Refinements," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-26, December.

    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. Thierry Chauveau, 2012. "Subjective risk and disappointment," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00747902, HAL.
    2. Thierry Chauveau, 2014. "Stochastic dominance, risk and disappointment: a synthesis," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 14054r, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne, revised Jul 2015.
    3. Thierry Chauveau & Nicolas Nalpas, 2011. "Disappointment Models: an axiomatic approach," Post-Print halshs-00560543, HAL.
    4. Thierry Chauveau, 2016. "Stochastic dominance, risk and disappointment: a synthesis," Post-Print halshs-01025102, HAL.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1324-1369 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Thierry Chauveau, 2014. "Stochastic dominance, risk and disappointment: a synthesis," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 14054rr, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne, revised Jan 2016.
    7. Sudeep Bhatia & Graham Loomes & Daniel Read, 2021. "Establishing the laws of preferential choice behavior," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(6), pages 1324-1369, November.
    8. Abdellaoui, Mohammed & Bleichrodt, Han, 2007. "Eliciting Gul's theory of disappointment aversion by the tradeoff method," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 631-645, December.
    9. Philippe Delquié & Alessandra Cillo, 2006. "Disappointment without prior expectation: a unifying perspective on decision under risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 197-215, December.
    10. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2018. "A second-generation disappointment aversion theory of decision making under risk," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(1), pages 29-60, January.
    11. Daniel R. Burghart, 2020. "The two faces of independence: betweenness and homotheticity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 88(4), pages 567-593, May.
    12. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Vitalie Spinu, 2020. "Searching for the Reference Point," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 93-112, January.
    13. James Andreoni & Charles Sprenger, 2011. "Uncertainty Equivalents: Testing the Limits of the Independence Axiom," NBER Working Papers 17342, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Xi Zhi Lim, 2021. "Ordered Reference Dependent Choice," Papers 2105.12915, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2024.
    15. Carlos Laciana & Elke Weber, 2008. "Correcting expected utility for comparisons between alternative outcomes: A unified parameterization of regret and disappointment," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 1-17, February.
    16. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Vitalie Spinu, 2020. "Searching for the Reference Point," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 93-112, January.
    17. Cillo, Alessandra & Delquié, Philippe, 2014. "Mean-risk analysis with enhanced behavioral content," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(3), pages 764-775.
    18. Thomas Epper & Helga Fehr-Duda, 2012. "The missing link: unifying risk taking and time discounting," ECON - Working Papers 096, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Oct 2018.
    19. Cheung, K.C. & Chong, W.F. & Yam, S.C.P., 2015. "The optimal insurance under disappointment theories," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 77-90.
    20. Katarzyna M. Werner & Horst Zank, 2019. "A revealed reference point for prospect theory," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 67(4), pages 731-773, June.
    21. Helga Fehr-Duda & Adrian Bruhin & Thomas Epper & Renate Schubert, 2010. "Rationality on the rise: Why relative risk aversion increases with stake size," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 147-180, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Disappointment; risk-aversion; subjective risk; risk premium; expected utility;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:mse:cesdoc:12063. 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: Lucie Label (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cenp1fr.html .

    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.