IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mse/cesdoc/v08084.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Risk perception, risk attitude and decision: a Rank-Dependent approach

Author

Abstract

The classical expected utility model of decision under risk (von Neumann-Morgenstern, 1944) has been criticized from an experimental point of view (Allais' paradox) as well as for its restrictive lack of explanatory power. The Rank-Dependent Expected Utility model (RDU) model (Quiggin, 1982) attempts to answer some of these criticisms. The decision maker is characterized by two functions: a utility function on consequences measuring preferences over sure outcomes and a probability weighting function measuring the subjective weighting of probabilities. As we show and illustrate in this paper, this model allows for more diversified types of behavior: it is consistent with the behavior revealed by the Allais paradox; the decision maker could dislike risk (prefer to any lottery its expectation) without necessarily avoiding any increase in risk; diminishing marginal utility may coexists with "weak" risk seeking attitudes; decision makers with the same utility function may differ in their choices between lotteries when they have different probability weighting functions; furthemore, the same decision maker may have different, context-dependent, subjective beliefs on events

Suggested Citation

  • Michèle Cohen, 2008. "Risk perception, risk attitude and decision: a Rank-Dependent approach," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne v08084, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    • Handle: RePEc:mse:cesdoc:v08084
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: ftp://mse.univ-paris1.fr/pub/mse/CES2008/V08084.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Jianhua Wang & Hanyu Diao & Lulu Tou, 2019. "Research on the Influence Mechanism of Rational Consumers’ Food Safety Supervision Satisfaction," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-16, March.
    2. Marc-Arthur Diaye & André Lapidus & Christian Schmidt, 2021. "From Decision in Risk to Decision in Time - and Return: A Restatement of Probability Discounting," Working Papers hal-03256606, HAL.
    3. Hasibuan, Abdul Muis & Gregg, Daniel & Stringer, Randy, 2020. "Accounting for diverse risk attitudes in measures of risk perceptions: A case study of climate change risk for small-scale citrus farmers in Indonesia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    4. Moez Abouda & Elyess Farhoud, 2010. "Anti-comonotone random variables and anti-monotone risk aversion," Post-Print halshs-00497444, HAL.
    5. Laurie Bréban & André Lapidus, 2019. "Adam Smith on lotteries: an interpretation and formal restatement," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1), pages 157-197, January.
    6. Moez Abouda & Elyess Farhoud, 2010. "Risk aversion and Relationships in model-free," Post-Print halshs-00492170, HAL.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Decision under risk; risk perception; risk aversion; Allais paradox; Rank-Dependent Expected Utility model;
    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:v08084. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.