IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/theord/v84y2018i1d10.1007_s11238-017-9636-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk attitudes in axiomatic decision theory: a conceptual perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Jean Baccelli

    (Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy)

Abstract

In this paper, I examine the decision-theoretic status of risk attitudes. I start by providing evidence showing that the risk attitude concepts do not play a major role in the axiomatic analysis of the classic models of decision-making under risk. This can be interpreted as reflecting the neutrality of these models between the possible risk attitudes. My central claim, however, is that such neutrality needs to be qualified and the axiomatic relevance of risk attitudes needs to be re-evaluated accordingly. Specifically, I highlight the importance of the conditional variation and the strengthening of risk attitudes, and I explain why they establish the axiomatic significance of the risk attitude concepts. I also present several questions for future research regarding the strengthening of risk attitudes.

Suggested Citation

  • Jean Baccelli, 2018. "Risk attitudes in axiomatic decision theory: a conceptual perspective," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(1), pages 61-82, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:theord:v:84:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s11238-017-9636-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11238-017-9636-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11238-017-9636-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11238-017-9636-6?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Segal, Uzi, 1990. "Two-Stage Lotteries without the Reduction Axiom," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 58(2), pages 349-377, March.
    2. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.
    3. Yaari, Menahem E, 1987. "The Dual Theory of Choice under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(1), pages 95-115, January.
    4. 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.
    5. Michèle Cohen & Isaac Meilijson, 2014. "Preference for safety under the Choquet model: in search of a characterization," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-00840001, HAL.
    6. 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.
    7. Hong, Chew Soo & Karni, Edi & Safra, Zvi, 1987. "Risk aversion in the theory of expected utility with rank dependent probabilities," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 370-381, August.
    8. Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 1982. "Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice under Uncertainty," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(368), pages 805-824, December.
    9. Alain Chateauneuf & Ghizlane Lakhnati, 2007. "From sure to strong diversification," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 32(3), pages 511-522, September.
    10. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    11. Segal, Uzi, 1987. "Some remarks on Quiggin's anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 145-154, March.
    12. Bommier, Antoine & Chassagnon, Arnold & Le Grand, François, 2012. "Comparative risk aversion: A formal approach with applications to saving behavior," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 147(4), pages 1614-1641.
    13. Gul, Faruk, 1991. "A Theory of Disappointment Aversion," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(3), pages 667-686, May.
    14. Antoine Bommier & Arnold Chassagnon & François Le Grand, 2012. "Comparative risk aversion: A formal approach with applications to saving behavior," PSE-Ecole d'économie de Paris (Postprint) halshs-00754583, HAL.
    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. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    17. Antoine Bommier & Arnold Chassagnon & François Le Grand, 2012. "Comparative risk aversion: A formal approach with applications to saving behavior," Post-Print halshs-00754583, HAL.
    18. David Dillenberger & Uzi Segal, 2015. "Recursive Ambiguity And Machina'S Examples," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 56, pages 55-61, February.
    19. Dean, Mark & Ortoleva, Pietro, 2017. "Allais, Ellsberg, and preferences for hedging," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(1), January.
    20. Chateauneuf, Alain & Cohen, Michele, 1994. "Risk Seeking with Diminishing Marginal Utility in a Non-expected Utility Model," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 77-91, July.
    21. Hong Chew Soo & Epstein Larry G. & Wakker Peter, 1993. "A Unifying Approach to Axiomatic Non-expected Utility Theories: Correction and Comment," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 183-188, February.
    22. Michèle Cohen & Isaac Meilijson, 2014. "Preference for safety under the Choquet model: in search of a characterization," Post-Print hal-00840001, HAL.
    23. Chateauneuf, Alain, 1999. "Comonotonicity axioms and rank-dependent expected utility theory for arbitrary consequences," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 21-45, August.
    24. Segal, Uzi & Spivak, Avia, 1990. "First order versus second order risk aversion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 111-125, June.
    25. Ryan, Matthew J., 2006. "Risk aversion in RDEU," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(6), pages 675-697, September.
    26. Yaari, Menahem E., 1969. "Some remarks on measures of risk aversion and on their uses," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 1(3), pages 315-329, October.
    27. Michèle Cohen & Isaac Meilijson, 2014. "Preference for safety under the Choquet model: in search of a characterization," PSE-Ecole d'économie de Paris (Postprint) hal-00840001, HAL.
    28. Chateauneuf, A. & Cohen, M. & Meilijson, I., 1997. "New Tools to Better Model Behavior Under Risk and UNcertainty: An Oevrview," Papiers d'Economie Mathématique et Applications 97.55, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
    29. Machina, Mark J, 1982. ""Expected Utility" Analysis without the Independence Axiom," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(2), pages 277-323, March.
    30. Christian Seidl, 2013. "The St. Petersburg Paradox at 300," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 247-264, June.
    31. Rothschild, Michael & Stiglitz, Joseph E., 1970. "Increasing risk: I. A definition," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 225-243, September.
    32. 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.
    33. Michèle Cohen & Isaac Meilijson, 2014. "Preference for safety under the Choquet model: in search of a characterization," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 55(3), pages 619-642, April.
    34. Chew, S. H. & Epstein, L. G., 1989. "A unifying approach to axiomatic non-expected utility theories," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 207-240, December.
    35. Antoine Bommier & Arnold Chassagnon & François Le Grand, 2012. "Comparative risk aversion : A formal approach with applications to saving behavior," Post-Print hal-02312602, HAL.
    36. Dekel, Eddie, 1986. "An axiomatic characterization of preferences under uncertainty: Weakening the independence axiom," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 304-318, December.
    37. repec:dau:papers:123456789/4434 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Jean Baccelli & Georg Schollmeyer & Christoph Jansen, 2022. "Risk aversion over finite domains," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 93(2), pages 371-397, 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. Jean Baccelli, 2018. "Risk Attitudes in Axiomatic Decision Theory: a Conceptual Perspective," Post-Print hal-01620886, HAL.
    2. Jean Baccelli, 2016. "L'analyse axiomatique et l'attitude par rapport au risque," Post-Print hal-01462286, HAL.
    3. Jean Baccelli & Georg Schollmeyer & Christoph Jansen, 2022. "Risk aversion over finite domains," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 93(2), pages 371-397, September.
    4. 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.
    5. Dillenberger, David & Segal, Uzi, 2017. "Skewed noise," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 344-364.
    6. Trabelsi, Mohamed Ali, 2006. "Les nouveaux modèles de décision dans le risque et l’incertain : quel apport ? [The new models of decision under risk or uncertainty : What approach?]," MPRA Paper 25442, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Moez Abouda & Elyess Farhoud, 2010. "Risk aversion and Relationships in model-free," Post-Print halshs-00492170, HAL.
    8. Moez Abouda & Elyess Farhoud, 2010. "Anti-comonotone random variables and anti-monotone risk aversion," Post-Print halshs-00497444, HAL.
    9. Dennis W. Jansen & Liqun Liu, 2022. "Portfolio choice in the model of expected utility with a safety-first component," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 45(1), pages 187-207, June.
    10. Karni, Edi & Maccheroni, Fabio & Marinacci, Massimo, 2015. "Ambiguity and Nonexpected Utility," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications,, Elsevier.
    11. Trabelsi, Mohamed Ali, 2019. "The new models of decision in risk: A review of the critical literature," MPRA Paper 92693, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2019.
    12. Liang Zou, 2006. "An Alternative to Prospect Theory," Annals of Economics and Finance, Society for AEF, vol. 7(1), pages 1-28, May.
    13. Trabelsi, Mohamed Ali, 2008. "Les nouveaux modèles de décision dans le risque et l’incertain : quel apport ? [The new models of decision under risk or uncertainty: What approach?]," MPRA Paper 83347, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2008.
    14. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.
    15. Laurent Denant-Boemont & Olivier L’Haridon, 2013. "La rationalité à l'épreuve de l'économie comportementale," Revue française d'économie, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 0(2), pages 35-89.
    16. 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.
    17. Wakker, Peter P. & Yang, Jingni, 2021. "Concave/convex weighting and utility functions for risk: A new light on classical theorems," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 429-435.
    18. Johannes G. Jaspersen & Richard Peter & Marc A. Ragin, 2023. "Probability weighting and insurance demand in a unified framework," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 48(1), pages 63-109, March.
    19. Alain Chateauneuf & Michèle Cohen, 2008. "Cardinal extensions of EU model based on the Choquet integral," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00348822, HAL.
    20. Shaw, W. Douglass & Woodward, Richard T., 2008. "Why environmental and resource economists should care about non-expected utility models," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 66-89, January.

    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:kap:theord:v:84:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s11238-017-9636-6. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.