IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ebl/ecbull/eb-01d80002.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Calibration results for rank-dependent expected utility

Author

Listed:
  • William Neilson

    () (Texas A&M University)

Abstract

If its utility function is everywhere increasing and concave, rank-dependent expected utility shares a troubling property with expected utility aversion to the same moderate-stakes risk at every wealth level implies an extreme aversion to large-stakes risks. In fact, the problem may be even worse for rank-dependent expected utility, since the moderate-stakes risk need not be actuarially fair.

Suggested Citation

  • William Neilson, 2001. "Calibration results for rank-dependent expected utility," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(10), pages 1-5.
  • Handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-01d80002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.accessecon.com/pubs/EB/2001/Volume4/EB-01D80002A.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matthew Rabin, 2000. "Risk Aversion and Expected-Utility Theory: A Calibration Theorem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(5), pages 1281-1292, September.
    2. Bernasconi, Michele, 1998. "Tax evasion and orders of risk aversion," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 123-134, January.
    3. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    4. Segal, Uzi & Spivak, Avia, 1990. "First order versus second order risk aversion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 111-125, June.
    5. Epstein, Larry G. & Zin, Stanley E., 1990. "'First-order' risk aversion and the equity premium puzzle," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 387-407, December.
    6. George Wu & Richard Gonzalez, 1996. "Curvature of the Probability Weighting Function," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(12), pages 1676-1690, December.
    7. Drazen Prelec, 1998. "The Probability Weighting Function," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 497-528, May.
    8. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    9. Fox, Craig R & Rogers, Brett A & Tversky, Amos, 1996. "Options Traders Exhibit Subadditive Decision Weights," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 5-17, July.
    10. Camerer, Colin F & Ho, Teck-Hua, 1994. "Violations of the Betweenness Axiom and Nonlinearity in Probability," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 167-196, March.
    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. Schmidt, Ulrich & Zank, Horst, 2009. "A simple model of cumulative prospect theory," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(3-4), pages 308-319, March.
    2. Just, David R. & Peterson, Hikaru Hanawa, 2003. "Expected Utility Calibration for Continuous Distributions," Working Papers 127170, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    3. repec:eee:ecolet:v:160:y:2017:i:c:p:24-28 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. James Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj & Bodo Vogt & Utteeyo Dasgupta, 2013. "Is there a plausible theory for decision under risk? A dual calibration critique," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 54(2), pages 305-333, October.
    5. Neilson, William S. & Winter, Harold, 2002. "A verification of the expected utility calibration theorem," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 347-351, February.
    6. Yusufcan Masatlioglu & Collin Raymond, 2016. "A Behavioral Analysis of Stochastic Reference Dependence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(9), pages 2760-2782, September.
    7. 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.
    8. Steffen Andersen & James C. Cox & Glenn W. Harrison & Morten Lau & Elisabet E. Rutstroem & Vjollca Sadiraj, 2011. "Asset Integration and Attitudes to Risk: Theory and Evidence," Working Papers 2011_10, Durham University Business School.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • 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:ebl:ecbull:eb-01d80002. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (John P. Conley). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.