IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/san/wpecon/1706.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 budgetary choice data with a broad class of models of choice under risk and under uncertainty. Our method can allow for risk loving and elation seeking attitudes, or it can be adapted to require risk aversion. It can also be used to calculate, via Afriat's efficiency index, the magnitude of violations from a particular model. We evaluate the performance of different models under risk (including expected utility, disappointment aversion, rank dependent utility, and stochastically monotone utility) in the data collected from several recent portfolio choice experiments.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew Polisson & John K.-H. Quah & Ludovic Renou, 2017. "Revealed preferences over risk and uncertainty," Discussion Paper Series, School of Economics and Finance 201706, School of Economics and Finance, University of St Andrews, revised 16 Apr 2019.
  • Handle: RePEc:san:wpecon:1706
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~wwwecon/repecfiles/4/1706.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    3. 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.
    4. Varian, Hal R, 1988. "Estimating Risk Aversion from Arrow-Debreu Portfolio Choice," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 56(4), pages 973-979, July.
    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. 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. Polisson, Matthew & Renou, Ludovic, 2016. "Afriat’s Theorem and Samuelson’s ‘Eternal Darkness’," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 36-40.
    3. 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.
    4. Cesar Martinelli & Mikhail Freer, 2016. "General Revealed Preferences," Working Papers 1059, George Mason University, Interdisciplinary Center for Economic Science, revised Jun 2016.
    5. Lanier, Joshua & Miao, Bin & Quah, John & Zhong, Songfa, 2018. "Intertemporal Consumption with Risk: A Revealed Preference Analysis," MPRA Paper 101407, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. 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.
    7. Echenique, Federico & Imai, Taisuke & Saito, Kota, 2018. "Approximate Expected Utility Rationalization," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 103, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    8. Mikhail Freer & Cesar Martinelli, 2018. "A Functional Approach to Revealed Preference," Working Papers ECARES 2018-29, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Mikhail Freer & Cesar Martinelli, 2018. "A Functional Approach to Revealed Preference," Working Papers 1070, George Mason University, Interdisciplinary Center for Economic Science.
    13. Federico Echenique, 2019. "New developments in revealed preference theory: decisions under risk, uncertainty, and intertemporal choice," Papers 1908.07561, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2019.
    14. 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.
    15. Demuynck, Thomas & Hjertstrand, Per, 2019. "Samuelson's Approach to Revealed Preference Theory: Some Recent Advances," Working Paper Series 1274, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    16. Mikhail Freer & Cesar Martinelli, 2020. "An Algebraic Approach to Revealed Preference," Working Papers 1078, George Mason University, Interdisciplinary Center for Economic Science.
    17. 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.
    18. Daniel R. Burghart, 2020. "The two faces of independence: betweenness and homotheticity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 88(4), pages 567-593, May.
    19. Drew Fudenberg & Wayne Gao & Annie Liang, 2020. "How Flexible is that Functional Form? Quantifying the Restrictiveness of Theories," Papers 2007.09213, arXiv.org.
    20. 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.
    21. Michele Garagnani, 2020. "The predictive power of risk elicitation tasks," ECON - Working Papers 362, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    22. 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. Caporin, Massimiliano & Costola, Michele & Jannin, Gregory & Maillet, Bertrand, 2018. "“On the (Ab)use of Omega?”," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 11-33.
    3. 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.
    4. Shi, Yun & Cui, Xiangyu & Zhou, Xunyu, 2020. "Beta and Coskewness Pricing: Perspective from Probability Weighting," SocArXiv 5rqhv, Center for Open Science.
    5. 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.
    6. Frantisek Kopriva, 2015. "Constant Bet Size? Don't Bet on It! Testing Expected Utility Theory on Betfair Data," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp545, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.
    7. Hashimzade, Nigar & Myles, Gareth D. & Rablen, Matthew D., 2016. "Predictive analytics and the targeting of audits," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 130-145.
    8. 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.
    9. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.
    10. Aldo Montesano, 2019. "On some aspects of decision theory under uncertainty: rationality, price-probabilities and the Dutch book argument," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 87(1), pages 57-85, July.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Thomas Epper & Helga Fehr-Duda, 2012. "The missing link: unifying risk taking and time discounting," ECON - Working Papers 096, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Oct 2018.
    14. John D. Hey & Luca Panaccione, 2018. "Dynamic decision making: what do people do?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 10, pages 235-273, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    15. Nathalie Etchart-Vincent, 2009. "Probability weighting and the ‘level’ and ‘spacing’ of outcomes: An experimental study over losses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 45-63, August.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Raquel M. Gaspar & Paulo M. Silva, 2019. "Investors’ Perspective on Portfolio InsuranceExpected Utility vs Prospect Theories," Working Papers REM 2019/92, ISEG - Lisbon School of Economics and Management, REM, Universidade de Lisboa.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    expected utility; rank dependent utility; disappointment aversion; generalized axiom of revealed preference; first order stochastic dominance; risk aversion; Afriat efficiency; intertemporal choice;
    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:san:wpecon:1706. 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: (The School of Economics and Finance). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/destauk.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.