Source-Dependence of Utility and Loss Aversion: A Critical Test of Ambiguity Models
This paper tests whether utility is the same for risk and for uncertainty. This test is critical for models that capture ambiguity aversion through a difference in event weighting between risk and uncertainty, like the multiple priors models and prospect theory. We present a new method to measure utility and loss aversion under uncertainty without the need to introduce simplifying parametric assumptions. Our method extends Wakker and Deneffe’s (1996) trade‐off method by allowing for standard sequences that include gains, losses, and the reference point. It provides an efficient way to measure loss aversion and a useful tool for practical applications of ambiguity models. We could not reject the hypothesis that utility and loss aversion were the same for risk and uncertainty, suggesting that utility primarily reflects attitudes towards outcomes. Utility was S‐shaped, concave for gains and convex for losses and there was substantial loss aversion. Our findings support models that explain ambiguity aversion through a difference in event weighting and suggest that descriptive ambiguity models should allow for reference‐dependence of utility.
|Date of creation:||Jul 2013|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: 02 23 23 35 47
Fax: (33) 2 23 23 35 99
Web page: http://crem.univ-rennes1.fr/
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:|| Postal: CREM (UMR CNRS 6211) - Faculty of Economics, 7 place Hoche, 35065 Rennes Cedex - France|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:tut:cremwp:201330. 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: (CODA-POIREY Hélène)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.