IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jrinsu/v85y2018i2p313-333.html

On The Robustness Of Higher Order Risk Preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Cary Deck
  • Harris Schlesinger

Abstract

Economists have begun to recognize the role that higher order risk preferences play in a variety of settings. As such, several experiments have documented the degree of prudence, temperance, and, to a lesser extent, edginess and bentness that laboratory subjects exhibit. More recently, researchers have argued that higher order risk preferences generally conform to mixed risk†averse and mixed risk†loving patterns that arise from a preference for disaggregating or aggregating harms, respectively. This article examines the robustness of this pattern in three ways. First, it attempts to directly replicate previous results with compound lotteries over monetary outcomes. Second, it compares behavior in compound lotteries with behavior in reduced†form lotteries. And third, it evaluates choices over monetary and nonmonetary risks. While previous results are replicated for compound lotteries over monetary outcomes and aggregate behavior with reduced†form lotteries has a similar pattern, individuals clearly treat compound and reduced†form lotteries differently. Further, behavior differs between monetary and nonmonetary outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Cary Deck & Harris Schlesinger, 2018. "On The Robustness Of Higher Order Risk Preferences," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 85(2), pages 313-333, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:jrinsu:v:85:y:2018:i:2:p:313-333
    DOI: 10.1111/jori.12217
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jori.12217
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jori.12217?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
    ---><---

    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. Attema, Arthur E. & l’Haridon, Olivier & van de Kuilen, Gijs, 2019. "Measuring multivariate risk preferences in the health domain," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 15-24.
    2. Timo Heinrich & Thomas Mayrhofer, 2018. "Higher-order risk preferences in social settings," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(2), pages 434-456, June.
    3. Haering, Alexander, 2021. "Framing decisions in experiments on higher-order risk preferences," Ruhr Economic Papers 913, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    4. Colasante, Annarita & Riccetti, Luca, 2020. "Risk aversion, prudence and temperance: It is a matter of gap between moments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 25(C).
    5. Douadia Bougherara & Lana Friesen & Céline Nauges, 2021. "Risk Taking with Left- and Right-Skewed Lotteries," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 62(1), pages 89-112, February.
    6. Loubergé, Henri & Malevergne, Yannick & Rey, Béatrice, 2020. "New Results for additive and multiplicative risk apportionment," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 140-151.
    7. Irene Mussio & Maximiliano Sosa Andrés & Abdul H Kidwai, 2023. "Higher order risk attitudes in the time of COVID-19: an experimental study," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 75(1), pages 163-182.
    8. Konstantinos Georgalos & Ivan Paya & David Peel, 2023. "Higher order risk attitudes: new model insights and heterogeneity of preferences," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(1), pages 145-192, March.
    9. Georgalos, Konstantinos & Paya, Ivan & Peel, David, 2024. "The Kőszegi–Rabin expectations-based model and risk-apportionment tasks for elicitation of higher order risk preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 224(C), pages 749-770.
    10. Trautmann, Stefan T. & Kuilen, Gijs van de, 2018. "Higher order risk attitudes: A review of experimental evidence," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 108-124.
    11. Timo R. Lambregts & Paul Bruggen & Han Bleichrodt, 2021. "Correction to: Insurance decisions under nonperformance risk and ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 63(3), pages 255-255, December.
    12. Thomas Mayrhofer & Hendrik Schmitz, 2020. "Prudence and prevention - Empirical evidence," Working Papers CIE 134, Paderborn University, CIE Center for International Economics.
    13. Sebastian Ebert, 2021. "Prudent Discounting: Experimental Evidence On Higher Order Time Risk Preferences," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 62(4), pages 1489-1511, November.
    14. Morten I. Lau & Hong Il Yoo, 2025. "Structural Estimation of Higher Order Risk Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 93(5), pages 1855-1883, September.
    15. Gollier, Christian, 2018. "Stochastic volatility implies fourth-degree risk dominance: Applications to asset pricing," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 155-171.
    16. Colasante, Annarita & García-Segarra, Jaume & Riccetti, Luca & Russo, Alberto, 2022. "On the consistency of the individual behavior when facing higher-order risk attitudes," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    17. Timo Heinrich & Jason Shachat, 2020. "The development of risk aversion and prudence in Chinese children and adolescents," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 61(3), pages 263-287, December.
    18. Colasante, Annarita & Riccetti, Luca, 2021. "Financial and non-financial risk attitudes: What does it matter?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 30(C).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C9 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments
    • D8 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty

    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:bla:jrinsu:v:85:y:2018:i:2:p:313-333. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ariaaea.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.