IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cth/wpaper/gru_2020_026.html

Reconsidering Risk Aversion

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel J. Benjamin

    (University of California Los Angeles & NBER)

  • Mark Alan Fontana

    (Hospital for Special Surgery & Weill Cornell Medical College)

  • Miles Kimball

    (University of Colorado Boulder & NBER)

Abstract

Risk aversion is typically inferred from real or hypothetical choices over risky lotteries, but such “untutored” choices may reflect mistakes rather than preferences. We develop a procedure to disentangle preferences from mistakes : after eliciting untutored choices, we confront participants with their choices that are inconsistent with expected-utility axioms (broken down enough to be self-evident) and allow them to reconsider their choices. We demonstrate this procedure via a survey about hypothetical retirement investment choices administered to 596 Cornell students. We find that, on average, reconsidered choices are more consistent with almost all expected-utility axioms, with one exception related to regret.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel J. Benjamin & Mark Alan Fontana & Miles Kimball, 2020. "Reconsidering Risk Aversion," GRU Working Paper Series GRU_2020_026, City University of Hong Kong, Department of Economics and Finance, Global Research Unit.
    • Handle: RePEc:cth:wpaper:gru_2020_026
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cb.cityu.edu.hk/ef/doc/GRU/WPS/GRU%232020-026%20Benjamin.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Palma, Marco & Feldman, Paul, 2024. "Incentives and Payment Mechanisms in Preference Elicitation," MPRA Paper 120898, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Ivan Mitrouchev & Malte Dold, 2025. "From heuristics and biases to agency," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 24(2), pages 489-508, December.
    3. Jack P Hughes & Alexandros Efstratiou & Sara R Komer & Lilli A Baxter & Milica Vasiljevic & Ana C Leite, 2022. "The impact of risk perceptions and belief in conspiracy theories on COVID-19 pandemic-related behaviours," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(2), pages 1-20, February.
    4. Zachary Breig & Paul Feldman, 2024. "Revealing risky mistakes through revisions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 68(3), pages 227-254, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • G11 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Portfolio Choice; Investment Decisions
    • H8 - Public Economics - - Miscellaneous Issues

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:cth:wpaper:gru_2020_026. 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: GRU The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask GRU to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/decithk.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.