IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/joecth/v54y2013i2p305-333.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is there a plausible theory for decision under risk? A dual calibration critique

Author

Listed:
  • James Cox
  • Vjollca Sadiraj

    ()

  • Bodo Vogt
  • Utteeyo Dasgupta

Abstract

Can any prominent theory of decision under risk rationalize both small-stakes risk aversion and large-stakes risk aversion? Do some prominent theories fail to rationalize patterns of same-stakes risk aversion? How do reference payoffs enter in the answer to these questions? What would be the characteristics of a theory of decision under risk that would be immune to calibration critique? We offer a theoretical duality analysis that addresses these questions. We report dual propositions and corollaries that calibrate the implications of nonlinear transformation of probabilities or payoffs (or both). We also report several experiments that provide data on the empirical relevance of the two types of calibration patterns. Copyright Springer-Verlag 2013

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:joecth:v:54:y:2013:i:2:p:305-333
    DOI: 10.1007/s00199-012-0712-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s00199-012-0712-4
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    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. Marc Rieger & Mei Wang, 2006. "Cumulative prospect theory and the St. Petersburg paradox," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 28(3), pages 665-679, August.
    2. Han Bleichrodt & Louis Eeckhoudt, 2005. "Saving under rank-dependent utility," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 25(2), pages 505-511, February.
    3. Zvi Safra & Uzi Segal, 2008. "Calibration Results for Non-Expected Utility Theories," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 76(5), pages 1143-1166, September.
    4. Yaari, Menahem E, 1987. "The Dual Theory of Choice under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(1), pages 95-115, January.
    5. 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.
    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. Ar. Rubinstein., 2008. "Dilemmas of an Economic Theorist," VOPROSY ECONOMIKI, N.P. Redaktsiya zhurnala "Voprosy Economiki", vol. 11.
    8. Matthew J. Ryan & Rhema Vaithianathan, 2003. "Medical insurance with rank-dependent utility," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 22(3), pages 689-698, October.
    9. Lars Tyge Nielsen & Fatma Lajeri, 2000. "Parametric characterizations of risk aversion and prudence," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 15(2), pages 469-476.
    10. Harry Markowitz, 1952. "The Utility of Wealth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 60, pages 151-151.
    11. Nicholas Barberis & Ming Huang & Richard H. Thaler, 2006. "Individual Preferences, Monetary Gambles, and Stock Market Participation: A Case for Narrow Framing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(4), pages 1069-1090, September.
    12. Matthew Rabin, 2000. "Risk Aversion and Expected-Utility Theory: A Calibration Theorem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(5), pages 1281-1292, September.
    13. Fabio Maccheroni, 2004. "Yaari's dual theory without the completeness axiom," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 23(3), pages 701-714, March.
    14. Gerry Boyle & Denis Conniffe, 2006. "Compatibility of Expected Utility and µ/s Approaches to Risk for a Class of Non Location-Scale Distributions," Economics, Finance and Accounting Department Working Paper Series n1670406, Department of Economics, Finance and Accounting, National University of Ireland - Maynooth.
    15. Eduardo Zambrano, 2008. "Expected utility inequalities: theory and applications," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 36(1), pages 147-158, July.
    16. Wakker,Peter P., 2010. "Prospect Theory," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521765015, March.
    17. Thomas Eichner & Andreas Wagener, 2003. "More on parametric characterizations of risk aversion and prudence," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 21(4), pages 895-900, June.
    18. Zvi Safra & Uzi Segal, 2009. "Risk aversion in the small and in the large: Calibration results for betweenness functionals," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 27-37, February.
    19. William Neilson, 2001. "Calibration results for rank-dependent expected utility," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(10), pages 1-5.
    20. Marco LiCalzi, 2000. "Upper and lower bounds for expected utility," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 16(2), pages 489-502, September.
    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. Mel Win Khaw & Ziang Li & Michael Woodford, 2017. "Risk Aversion as a Perceptual Bias," CESifo Working Paper Series 6416, CESifo.
    2. Utteeyo Dasgupta & Subha Mani & Smriti Sharma & Saurabh Singhal, 2016. "Eliciting risk preferences: Firefighting in the field," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2016-47, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    3. Vjollca Sadiraj, 2014. "Probabilistic risk attitudes and local risk aversion: a paradox," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(4), pages 443-454, December.
    4. Minqiang Li, 2014. "On Aumann and Serrano’s economic index of risk," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 55(2), pages 415-437, February.
    5. Stefan A. Lipman & Arthur E. Attema, 2019. "Rabin's paradox for health outcomes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(8), pages 1064-1071, August.
    6. Siebert, Jan, 2020. "Are the poor more impatient than the rich? Experimental evidence on the effect of (lab) wealth on intertemporal preferences," Ruhr Economic Papers 845, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    7. Jung, SeEun & Choe, Chung & Oaxaca, Ronald L., 2018. "Gender wage gaps and risky vs. secure employment: An experimental analysis," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 112-121.
    8. Han Bleichrodt & Jason N. Doctor & Yu Gao & Chen Li & Daniella Meeker & Peter P. Wakker, 2019. "Resolving Rabin’s paradox," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 59(3), pages 239-260, December.
    9. Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten I. & Ross, Don & Swarthout, J. Todd, 2017. "Small stakes risk aversion in the laboratory: A reconsideration," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 24-28.
    10. Dasgupta, Utteeyo & Mani, Subha & Sharma, Smriti & Singhal, Saurabh, 2016. "Eliciting Risk Preferences: Firefighting in the Field," IZA Discussion Papers 9765, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    11. Schosser, Stephan & Trarbach, Judith N. & Vogt, Bodo, 2016. "How does the perception of pain determine the selection between different treatments?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 131(PB), pages 174-182.
    12. 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.
    13. Zambrano, Eduardo, 2020. "Risk attitudes over small and large stakes recalibrated," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    14. Eduardo Zambrano, 2019. "Risk attitudes over small and large stakes recalibrated," Working Papers 1906, California Polytechnic State University, Department of Economics.
    15. Kelvin Balcombe & Iain Fraser, 2015. "Parametric preference functionals under risk in the gain domain: A Bayesian analysis," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 161-187, April.
    16. Aurelian DIACONU & Doina AVRAM, 2017. "General Aspects of Risk and Uncertainty in Making Financial – Economic Decisions," Romanian Statistical Review Supplement, Romanian Statistical Review, vol. 65(6), pages 40-50, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Risk aversion; Calibration; Duality; Reference dependence; Experiments; C91; D81;

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk 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:spr:joecth:v:54:y:2013:i:2:p:305-333. 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: (Sonal Shukla) or (Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.