IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/upf/upfgen/1909.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

What’s in a u?

Author

Abstract

We revisit the long-lasting debate about the meaning of the utility function used in the standard Expected Utility (EU) model. Despite the common view that EU forces risk aversion and diminishing marginal utility of wealth to be pegged to one another, here we show that this is not the case. Marginal utility for money is an input into risk attitude, but it is not its sole determinant. The attitude towards ‘pure risk’ is also a contributing factor, and it is independent from the former. We discuss several theoretical implications of this result, for the following topics: (i) non-neutral risk attitudes for profit maximizing firms; (ii) risk-aversion over time lotteries in the presence of discounting; (iii) the equity premium puzzle. We also discuss matters of identification: (i) for firms; (ii) via proxies ; (iii) via standard MLE-methods under parametric restrictions; and (iv) cross-context elicitation in multi-dimensional settings, and its relationship with the methods and results from the psychology literature.

Suggested Citation

  • Antonio Penta & Larbi Alaoui, 2025. "What’s in a u?," Economics Working Papers 1909, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    • Handle: RePEc:upf:upfgen:1909
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econ-papers.upf.edu/papers/1909.pdf
    File Function: Whole Paper
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Garance Genicot & Debraj Ray, 2017. "Aspirations and Inequality," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 85, pages 489-519, March.
    2. David Gill & Victoria Prowse, 2012. "A Structural Analysis of Disappointment Aversion in a Real Effort Competition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(1), pages 469-503, February.
    3. Liran Einav & Amy Finkelstein & Iuliana Pascu & Mark R. Cullen, 2012. "How General Are Risk Preferences? Choices under Uncertainty in Different Domains," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(6), pages 2606-2638, October.
    4. Ferdinand M. Vieider & Mathieu Lefebvre & Ranoua Bouchouicha & Thorsten Chmura & Rustamdjan Hakimov & Michal Krawczyk & Peter Martinsson, 2015. "Common Components Of Risk And Uncertainty Attitudes Across Contexts And Domains: Evidence From 30 Countries," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 13(3), pages 421-452, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. repec:bge:wpaper:1494 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Patricio S Dalton & Victor H Gonzalez Jimenez & Charles N Noussair, 2017. "Exposure to Poverty and Productivity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-19, January.
    3. Schmidt, Ulrich & Neyse, Levent & Aleknonyte, Milda, 2015. "Income inequality and risk taking," Kiel Working Papers 2000, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    4. Giuseppe Attanasi & Ylenia Curci & Patrick Llerena & Adriana Carolina Pinate & Maria del Pino Ramos-Sosa & Giulia Urso, 2019. "Looking at Creativity from East to West: Risk Taking and Intrinsic Motivation in Socially and Culturally Diverse Countries," GREDEG Working Papers 2019-21, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    5. Schmidt, Ulrich & Neyse, Levent & Aleknonyte, Milda, 2019. "Income inequality and risk taking: the impact of social comparison information," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 87(3), pages 283-297.
    6. Gary Charness & Thomas Garcia & Theo Offerman & Marie Claire Villeval, 2020. "Do measures of risk attitude in the laboratory predict behavior under risk in and outside of the laboratory?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 60(2), pages 99-123, April.
    7. Patrick Ring & Ulrich Schmidt, 2019. "Skin conductance responses in anticipation of gains and losses," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(1), pages 38-50, August.
    8. Carole Treibich, 2015. "Are Survey Risk Aversion Measurements Adequate in a Low Income Context?," AMSE Working Papers 1517, Aix-Marseille School of Economics, France.
    9. Soo Hong Chew & Bin Miao & Songfa Zhong, 2023. "Ellsberg meets Keynes at an urn," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 14(3), pages 1133-1162, July.
    10. Chaikal Nuryakin & Alistair Munro, 2019. "Experiments on lotteries for shrouded and bundled goods: Investigating the economics of fukubukuro," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 70(2), pages 168-188, June.
    11. Armin Falk & Anke Becker & Thomas Dohmen & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2023. "The Preference Survey Module: A Validated Instrument for Measuring Risk, Time, and Social Preferences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(4), pages 1935-1950, April.
    12. Patrick Maus & Maria Montero & Martin Sefton, 2023. "Social reference points and real-effort provision," Discussion Papers 2023-03, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    13. Johannes G. Jaspersen & Marc A. Ragin & Justin R. Sydnor, 2022. "Predicting insurance demand from risk attitudes," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 89(1), pages 63-96, March.
    14. Salvatore Di Falco & Ferdinand M Vieider, 2022. "Environmental Adaptation of Risk Preferences," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 132(648), pages 2737-2766.
    15. Colleta Gandidzanwa & Aart Jan Verschoor & Thabo Sacolo, 2021. "Evaluating Factors Affecting Performance of Land Reform Beneficiaries in South Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-15, August.
    16. Gwen-Jiro Clochard & Guillaume Hollard & Julia Wirtz, 2022. "More effort or better technologies? On the effect of relative performance feedback," Bristol Economics Discussion Papers 22/767, School of Economics, University of Bristol, UK.
    17. Freeman, Richard B. & Pan, Xiaofei & Yang, Xiaolan & Ye, Maoliang, 2025. "Team incentives and lower ability workers: A real-effort experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 233(C).
    18. Aregawi G Gebremariam & Elisabetta Lodigiani & Giacomo Pasini, 2024. "The Impact of Ethiopian Productive Safety Net Program on Children's Educational Aspirations and Attainments," Journal of African Economies, Centre for the Study of African Economies, vol. 33(3), pages 271-296.
    19. Simon Gächter & Lingbo Huang & Martin Sefton, 2016. "Combining “real effort” with induced effort costs: the ball-catching task," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(4), pages 687-712, December.
    20. Hajimoladarvish , Narges, 2021. "Explaining Heterogeneity in Risk Preferences Using a Finite Mixture Model," Journal of Money and Economy, Monetary and Banking Research Institute, Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran, vol. 16(4), pages 533-554, December.
    21. Yaroslav Rosokha & Chen Wei, 2024. "Cooperation in Queueing Systems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 70(11), pages 7597-7616, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
    • D80 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - General
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making

    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:upf:upfgen:1909. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask the person in charge to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.upf.edu/en/web/econ/ .

    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.