IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/qmw/qmwecw/822.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Revealed preferences over risk and uncertainty

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew Polisson

    (University of St Andrews)

  • John K.-H. Quah

    (Johns Hopkins University)

  • Ludovic Renou

    (Queen Mary University of London)

Abstract

We develop a nonparametric procedure, called the lattice method, for testing the consistency of contingent consumption data with a broad class of models of choice under risk and under uncertainty. Our method allows for risk loving and elation seeking behaviour and can be used to calculate, via Afriat’s efficiency index, the magnitude of violations from a particular model of choice. We evaluate the performance of different models (including expected utility, disappointment aversion, rank dependent utility, mean-variance utility, and stochastically monotone utility) in the data collected by Choi et al. (2007), in terms of pass rates, power, and predictive success.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew Polisson & John K.-H. Quah & Ludovic Renou, 2017. "Revealed preferences over risk and uncertainty," Working Papers 822, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    • Handle: RePEc:qmw:qmwecw:822
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.qmul.ac.uk/sef/media/econ/research/workingpapers/2017/items/wp822.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hiroki Nishimura & Efe A. Ok & John K.-H. Quah, 2017. "A Comprehensive Approach to Revealed Preference Theory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(4), pages 1239-1263, April.
    2. 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.
    3. Varian, Hal R, 1988. "Estimating Risk Aversion from Arrow-Debreu Portfolio Choice," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 56(4), pages 973-979, July.
    4. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    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. Marco Castillo & David L. Dickinson & Ragan Petrie, 2017. "Sleepiness, choice consistency, and risk preferences," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 82(1), pages 41-73, January.
    2. Federico Echenique & Taisuke Imai & Kota Saito, 2018. "Approximate Expected Utility Rationalization," CESifo Working Paper Series 7348, CESifo.
    3. Matthew Polisson, 2018. "A Lattice Test for Additive Separability," Discussion Paper Series, School of Economics and Finance 201801, School of Economics and Finance, University of St Andrews.
    4. Leandro Carvalho & Arna Olafsson & Dan Silverman, 2019. "Misfortune and Mistake: The Financial Conditions and Decision-making Ability of High-cost Loan Borrowers," NBER Working Papers 26328, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Demuynck, Thomas & Hjertstrand, Per, 2019. "Samuelson's Approach to Revealed Preference Theory: Some Recent Advances," Working Paper Series 1274, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    6. Hiroki Nishimura & Efe A. Ok & John K.-H. Quah, 2017. "A Comprehensive Approach to Revealed Preference Theory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(4), pages 1239-1263, April.
    7. Mikhail Freer & Cesar Martinelli, 2020. "An Algebraic Approach to Revealed Preference," Working Papers 1078, George Mason University, Interdisciplinary Center for Economic Science.
    8. Polisson, Matthew & Renou, Ludovic, 2016. "Afriat’s Theorem and Samuelson’s ‘Eternal Darkness’," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 36-40.
    9. Geoffroy de Clippel & Kareen Rozen, 2020. "Relaxed Optimization: e-Rationalizability and the FOC-Departure Index in Consumer Theory," Working Papers 2020-07, Brown University, Department of Economics.
    10. Stefania Minardi & Andrei Savochkin, 2017. "Characterizations of Smooth Ambiguity Based on Continuous and Discrete Data," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 42(1), pages 167-178, January.
    11. Daniel R. Burghart, 2020. "The two faces of independence: betweenness and homotheticity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 88(4), pages 567-593, May.
    12. Mikhail Freer & Cesar Martinelli, 2018. "A Functional Approach to Revealed Preference," Working Papers 1070, George Mason University, Interdisciplinary Center for Economic Science.
    13. Drew Fudenberg & Wayne Gao & Annie Liang, 2020. "How Flexible is that Functional Form? Quantifying the Restrictiveness of Theories," Papers 2007.09213, arXiv.org.
    14. Federico Echenique & Taisuke Imai & Kota Saito, 2019. "Decision Making under Uncertainty: An Experimental Study in Market Settings," Papers 1911.00946, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2019.
    15. Thomas Demuynck & Clément Staner, 2020. "An Efficient Revealed Preference Test for the Maxmin Expected Utility Model," Working Papers ECARES 2020-31, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    16. Cesar Martinelli & Mikhail Freer, 2016. "General Revealed Preferences," Working Papers 1059, George Mason University, Interdisciplinary Center for Economic Science, revised Jun 2016.
    17. Mikhail Freer & Cesar Martinelli, 2018. "A Functional Approach to Revealed Preference," Working Papers 1070, George Mason University, Interdisciplinary Center for Economic Science.
    18. Michele Garagnani, 2020. "The predictive power of risk elicitation tasks," ECON - Working Papers 362, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    19. Lanier, Joshua & Miao, Bin & Quah, John & Zhong, Songfa, 2018. "Intertemporal Consumption with Risk: A Revealed Preference Analysis," MPRA Paper 86263, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Pawel Dziewulski, 2021. "A comprehensive revealed preference approach to approximate utility maximisation and non-transitive indifferences," Working Paper Series 0621, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    21. Federico Echenique, 2019. "New developments in revealed preference theory: decisions under risk, uncertainty, and intertemporal choice," Papers 1908.07561, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2019.
    22. Laurens Cherchye & Thomas Demuynck & Bram De Rock & Joshua Lanier, 2020. "Are Consumers Rational ?Shifting the Burden of Proof," Working Papers ECARES 2020-19, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    23. Kubler, Felix & Selden, Larry & Wei, Xiao, 2020. "Incomplete market demand tests for Kreps-Porteus-Selden preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).

    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. 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.
    2. Choo, Weihao & de Jong, Piet, 2015. "The tradeoff insurance premium as a two-sided generalisation of the distortion premium," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 238-246.
    3. Shi, Yun & Cui, Xiangyu & Zhou, Xunyu, 2020. "Beta and Coskewness Pricing: Perspective from Probability Weighting," SocArXiv 5rqhv, Center for Open Science.
    4. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2019. "What are axiomatizations good for?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(3), pages 339-359, May.
    5. Christian Gollier & James Hammitt & Nicolas Treich, 2013. "Risk and choice: A research saga," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 129-145, October.
    6. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.
    7. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Olivier L’Haridon & Horst Zank, 2010. "Separating curvature and elevation: A parametric probability weighting function," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 39-65, August.
    8. A. Alventosa & Y. Gómez & V. Martínez-Molés & J. Vila, 2016. "Location and Innovation Optimism: a Behavioral-Experimental Approach," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 7(4), pages 890-904, December.
    9. Xue Dong He & Sang Hu & Jan Obłój & Xun Yu Zhou, 2017. "Technical Note—Path-Dependent and Randomized Strategies in Barberis’ Casino Gambling Model," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 65(1), pages 97-103, February.
    10. Yaron Azrieli & Christopher P. Chambers & Paul J. Healy, 2020. "Incentives in experiments with objective lotteries," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(1), pages 1-29, March.
    11. Kerim Keskin, 2016. "Inverse S-shaped probability weighting functions in first-price sealed-bid auctions," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 20(1), pages 57-67, March.
    12. Serge Blondel & Louis Lévy-garboua, 2011. "Can non-expected utility theories explain the paradox of not voting?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 31(4), pages 3158-3168.
    13. Moshe Levy & Haim Levy, 2013. "Prospect Theory: Much Ado About Nothing?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 7, pages 129-144, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    14. Groneck, Max & Ludwig, Alexander & Zimper, Alexander, 2016. "A life-cycle model with ambiguous survival beliefs," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 137-180.
    15. Markus Dertwinkel-Kalt & Jonas Frey & Mats Köster, 2020. "Optimal Stopping in a Dynamic Salience Model," CESifo Working Paper Series 8496, CESifo.
    16. Mark Schneider & Mikhael Shor, 2016. "The Common Ratio Effect in Choice, Pricing, and Happiness Tasks," Working papers 2016-29, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
    17. Luís Santos-Pinto & Adrian Bruhin & José Mata & Thomas Åstebro, 2015. "Detecting heterogeneous risk attitudes with mixed gambles," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(4), pages 573-600, December.
    18. Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten Igel & Rutström, Elisabet E., 2014. "Dual criteria decisions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 101-113.
      • Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten Igel & Rutström, Elisabet, 2009. "Dual Criteria Decisions," Working Papers 02-2009, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Economics.
    19. Kocher, Martin G. & Krawczyk, Michal & van Winden, Frans, 2014. "‘Let me dream on!’ Anticipatory emotions and preference for timing in lotteries," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 29-40.
    20. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten, 2017. "On the applicability of maximum likelihood methods: From experimental to financial data," SAFE Working Paper Series 148, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    expected utility; rank dependent utility; disappointment aversion; Bronars power; predictive success; generalized axiom of revealed preference; first order stochastic dominance; mean-variance utility; Afriat’s efficiency index;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C14 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Semiparametric and Nonparametric Methods: General
    • C60 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - General
    • D11 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Theory
    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    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:qmw:qmwecw:822. 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: (Nicholas Owen) The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Nicholas Owen to update the entry or send us the correct email address. General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deqmwuk.html .

    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.