IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v63y2017i9p2933-2947.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Between First- and Second-Order Stochastic Dominance

Author

Listed:
  • Alfred Müller

    (Department Mathematik, Universität Siegen, 57072 Siegen, Germany)

  • Marco Scarsini

    (Dipartimento di Economia e Finanza, LUISS, I–00197 Roma, Italy)

  • Ilia Tsetlin

    (INSEAD, Singapore 138676)

  • Robert L. Winkler

    (Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708)

Abstract

We develop a continuum of stochastic dominance rules, covering preferences from first- to second-order stochastic dominance. The motivation for such a continuum is that while decision makers have a preference for “more is better,” they are mostly risk averse but cannot assert that they would dislike any risk. For example, situations with targets, aspiration levels, and local convexities in induced utility functions in sequential decision problems may lead to preferences for some risks. We relate our continuum of stochastic dominance rules to utility classes, the corresponding integral conditions, and probability transfers and discuss the usefulness of these interpretations. Several examples involving, e.g., finite-crossing cumulative distribution functions, location-scale families, and induced utility, illustrate the implementation of the framework developed here. Finally, we extend our results to a combined order including convex (risk-taking) stochastic dominance.

Suggested Citation

  • Alfred Müller & Marco Scarsini & Ilia Tsetlin & Robert L. Winkler, 2017. "Between First- and Second-Order Stochastic Dominance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(9), pages 2933-2947, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:63:y:2017:i:9:p:2933-2947
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2016.2486
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2486
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2486?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. Alain Chateauneuf & Michéle Cohen & Isaac Meilijson, 2005. "More pessimism than greediness: a characterization of monotone risk aversion in the rank-dependent expected utility model," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 25(3), pages 649-667, April.
    2. Botond Kőszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2006. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(4), pages 1133-1165.
    3. Benjamin Armbruster & Erick Delage, 2015. "Decision Making Under Uncertainty When Preference Information Is Incomplete," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(1), pages 111-128, January.
    4. Harry Markowitz, 1952. "The Utility of Wealth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 60, pages 151-151.
    5. Fishburn, Peter C., 1976. "Continua of stochastic dominance relations for bounded probability distributions," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 295-311, December.
    6. Kevin F. McCardle & Robert L. Winkler, 1992. "Repeated Gambles, Learning, and Risk Aversion," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(6), pages 807-818, June.
    7. Cillo, Alessandra & Delquié, Philippe, 2014. "Mean-risk analysis with enhanced behavioral content," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(3), pages 764-775.
    8. Anil Gaba & Ilia Tsetlin & Robert L. Winkler, 2004. "Modifying Variability and Correlations in Winner-Take-All Contests," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 52(3), pages 384-395, June.
    9. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    10. Denuit, Michel & Eeckhoudt, Louis & Tsetlin, Ilia & Winkler, Robert, 2013. "Multivariate Concave and Convex Stochastic Dominance," LIDAM Reprints ISBA 2013012, Université catholique de Louvain, Institute of Statistics, Biostatistics and Actuarial Sciences (ISBA).
    11. David E. Bell, 1982. "Regret in Decision Making under Uncertainty," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(5), pages 961-981, October.
    12. Ilia Tsetlin & Anil Gaba & Robert L. Winkler, 2004. "Strategic Choice of Variability in Multiround Contests and Contests with Handicaps," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 143-158, September.
    13. Fishburn, Peter C., 1980. "Continua of stochastic dominance relations for unbounded probability distributions," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 271-285, December.
    14. Degeorge, Francois & Patel, Jayendu & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1999. "Earnings Management to Exceed Thresholds," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 72(1), pages 1-33, January.
    15. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    16. Botond Koszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2007. "Reference-Dependent Risk Attitudes," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(4), pages 1047-1073, September.
    17. 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.
    18. Manel Baucells & Franz H. Heukamp, 2006. "Stochastic Dominance and Cumulative Prospect Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(9), pages 1409-1423, September.
    19. Ilia Tsetlin & Robert L. Winkler & Rachel J. Huang & Larry Y. Tzeng, 2015. "Generalized Almost Stochastic Dominance," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 63(2), pages 363-377, April.
    20. Rothschild, Michael & Stiglitz, Joseph E., 1970. "Increasing risk: I. A definition," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 225-243, September.
    21. Milton Friedman & L. J. Savage, 1948. "The Utility Analysis of Choices Involving Risk," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56, pages 279-279.
    22. Kobberling, Veronika & Wakker, Peter P., 2005. "An index of loss aversion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 122(1), pages 119-131, May.
    23. Moshe Leshno & Haim Levy, 2002. "Preferred by "All" and Preferred by "Most" Decision Makers: Almost Stochastic Dominance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(8), pages 1074-1085, August.
    24. David E. Bell, 1988. "The Value of Pre-Decision Side Bets for Utility Maximizers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(6), pages 797-800, June.
    25. David E. Bell, 1985. "Disappointment in Decision Making Under Uncertainty," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(1), pages 1-27, February.
    26. Machina, Mark J & Pratt, John W, 1997. "Increasing Risk: Some Direct Constructions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 103-127, March.
    27. Sebastian Ebert, 2013. "Even (Mixed) Risk Lovers Are Prudent: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(4), pages 1536-1537, June.
    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. Carole Bernard & Gero Junike & Thibaut Lux & Steven Vanduffel, 2022. "Cost-efficient Payoffs under Model Ambiguity," Papers 2207.02948, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2023.
    2. Ehsan Azmoodeh & Ozan Hur, 2023. "Multi-fractional Stochastic Dominance: Mathematical Foundations," Papers 2307.08651, arXiv.org.
    3. Tommaso Lando & Lucio Bertoli-Barsotti, 2019. "Distorted stochastic dominance: a generalized family of stochastic orders," Papers 1909.04767, arXiv.org.
    4. Lando, Tommaso & Bertoli-Barsotti, Lucio, 2020. "Distorted stochastic dominance: A generalized family of stochastic orders," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 132-139.
    5. Tim J. Boonen & Fangda Liu & Ruodu Wang, 2021. "Competitive equilibria in a comonotone market," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 72(4), pages 1217-1255, November.
    6. Francesco Cesarone & Justo Puerto, 2024. "New approximate stochastic dominance approaches for Enhanced Indexation models," Papers 2401.12669, arXiv.org.
    7. Mao, Tiantian & Wang, Ruodu, 2022. "Fractional stochastic dominance in rank-dependent utility and cumulative prospect theory," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    8. Wang, Hongxia & Zhou, Lin & Dai, Peng-Fei & Xiong, Xiong, 2022. "Moment conditions for fractional degree stochastic dominance," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    9. Bi, Hongwei & Zhu, Wei, 2022. "Nonmonotonic risk preferences over lottery comparison," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 303(3), pages 1458-1468.
    10. Jianping Yang & Chaoqun Zhao & Weiru Chen & Diwei Zhou & Shuguang Han, 2022. "Fraction-Degree Reference Dependent Stochastic Dominance," Methodology and Computing in Applied Probability, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 1193-1219, June.
    11. Mark Whitmeyer, 2021. "Submission Fees in Risk-Taking Contests," Papers 2108.13506, arXiv.org.
    12. Hanbali, Hamza & Dhaene, Jan & Linders, Daniël, 2022. "Dependence bounds for the difference of stop-loss payoffs on the difference of two random variables," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 22-37.
    13. Rachel J. Huang & Larry Y. Tzeng & Lin Zhao, 2020. "Fractional Degree Stochastic Dominance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(10), pages 4630-4647, October.
    14. Hengzhen Lu & Yingying Zhang & Ling Xiao & Gurjeet Dhesi, 2022. "A State-of-the-Art Fund Performance Index: Higher-Order Omega and Its Consistency with Almost Stochastic Dominance," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-20, September.

    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. Rachel J. Huang & Larry Y. Tzeng & Lin Zhao, 2020. "Fractional Degree Stochastic Dominance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(10), pages 4630-4647, October.
    2. Enrico G. De Giorgi & Thierry Post, 2011. "Loss Aversion with a State-Dependent Reference Point," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(6), pages 1094-1110, June.
    3. Jianping Yang & Chaoqun Zhao & Weiru Chen & Diwei Zhou & Shuguang Han, 2022. "Fraction-Degree Reference Dependent Stochastic Dominance," Methodology and Computing in Applied Probability, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 1193-1219, June.
    4. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Vitalie Spinu, 2020. "Searching for the Reference Point," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 93-112, January.
    5. Ghossoub, Mario, 2011. "Towards a Purely Behavioral Definition of Loss Aversion," MPRA Paper 37628, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 23 Mar 2012.
    6. Charles-Cadogan, G., 2018. "Losses loom larger than gains and reference dependent preferences in Bernoulli’s utility function," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 220-237.
    7. Mark Schneider & Robert Day, 2018. "Target-Adjusted Utility Functions and Expected-Utility Paradoxes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 271-287, January.
    8. Raymond H. Chan & Ephraim Clark & Xu Guo & Wing-Keung Wong, 2020. "New development on the third-order stochastic dominance for risk-averse and risk-seeking investors with application in risk management," Risk Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 22(2), pages 108-132, June.
    9. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1324-1369 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Charles-Cadogan, G., 2016. "Expected utility theory and inner and outer measures of loss aversion," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 10-20.
    11. Flores, Gabriela & O’Donnell, Owen, 2016. "Catastrophic medical expenditure risk," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 1-15.
    12. Alessandra Cillo & Marco Bonetti & Giovanni Burro & Clelia Di Serio & Roberta De Filippis & Riccardo Maria Martoni, 2019. "Neurocognitive assessment in obsessive compulsive disorder patients: Adherence to behavioral decision models," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-16, February.
    13. Jia Liu & Zhiping Chen & Giorgio Consigli, 2021. "Interval-based stochastic dominance: theoretical framework and application to portfolio choices," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 307(1), pages 329-361, December.
    14. 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.
    15. Bi, Hongwei & Zhu, Wei, 2022. "Nonmonotonic risk preferences over lottery comparison," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 303(3), pages 1458-1468.
    16. 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.
    17. Hooi Hooi Lean & Michael McAleer & Wing-Keung Wong, 2013. "Risk-averse and Risk-seeking Investor Preferences for Oil Spot and Futures," Documentos de Trabajo del ICAE 2013-31, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Instituto Complutense de Análisis Económico, revised Aug 2013.
    18. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2013. "Salience and Consumer Choice," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(5), pages 803-843.
    19. Epper, Thomas & Fehr-Duda, Helga, 2017. "A Tale of Two Tails: On the Coexistence of Overweighting and Underweighting of Rare Extreme Events," Economics Working Paper Series 1705, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.
    20. Ivan Barreda-Tarrazona & Ainhoa Jaramillo-Gutierrez & Daniel Navarro-Martinez & Gerardo Sabater-Grande, 2014. "The role of forgone opportunities in decision making under risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 49(2), pages 167-188, October.
    21. Wang, Hongxia & Wang, Jianli & Li, Jingyuan & Xia, Xinping, 2015. "Precautionary paying for stochastic improvements under background risks," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 180-185.

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:63:y:2017:i:9:p:2933-2947. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.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.