IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/dicedp/248.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Local thinking and skewness preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Dertwinkel-Kalt, Markus
  • Köster, Mats

Abstract

We show that continuous models of stimulus-driven attention can account for skewness-related puzzles in decision-making under risk. First,we delineate that these models provide awell-defined theory of choice under risk. We therefore prove that in continuous - in contrast to discrete - models of stimulus-driven attention each lottery has a unique certainty equivalent that is monotonic in probabilities (i.e., it monotonically increases if probability mass is shifted to more favorable outcomes). Second, we show that whether an agent seeks or avoids a specific risk depends on the skewness of the underlying probability distribution. Since unlikely, but outstanding payoffs attract attention, an agent exhibits a preference for right-skewed and an aversion toward left-skewed risks. While cumulative prospect theory can also account for such skewness preferences, it yields implausible predictions on their magnitude. We show that these extreme implications can be ruled out for continuous models of stimulus-driven attention.

Suggested Citation

  • Dertwinkel-Kalt, Markus & Köster, Mats, 2017. "Local thinking and skewness preferences," DICE Discussion Papers 248, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:dicedp:248
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/157231/1/884380262.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Markus K. Brunnermeier & Jonathan A. Parker, 2005. "Optimal Expectations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(4), pages 1092-1118, September.
    2. Peter Berkhout & Joop Hartog & Dinand Webbink, 2010. "Compensation for Earnings Risk under Worker Heterogeneity," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 76(3), pages 762-790, January.
    3. Tobias Brunner & Rene Levinsky & Jianying Qiu, 2011. "Preferences for skewness: evidence from a binary choice experiment," The European Journal of Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(7), pages 525-538.
    4. 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.
    5. Bali, Turan G. & Cakici, Nusret & Whitelaw, Robert F., 2011. "Maxing out: Stocks as lotteries and the cross-section of expected returns," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(2), pages 427-446, February.
    6. Jennifer Conrad & Robert F. Dittmar & Eric Ghysels, 2013. "Ex Ante Skewness and Expected Stock Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 68(1), pages 85-124, February.
    7. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2012. "Salience Theory of Choice Under Risk," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 127(3), pages 1243-1285.
    8. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2013. "Salience and Asset Prices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(3), pages 623-628, May.
    9. Chen, Joseph & Hong, Harrison & Stein, Jeremy C., 2001. "Forecasting crashes: trading volume, past returns, and conditional skewness in stock prices," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 345-381, September.
    10. Sebastian Ebert & Daniel Wiesen, 2011. "Testing for Prudence and Skewness Seeking," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(7), pages 1334-1349, July.
    11. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2013. "Salience and Consumer Choice," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(5), pages 803-843.
    12. Brian Boyer & Todd Mitton & Keith Vorkink, 2010. "Expected Idiosyncratic Skewness," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 23(1), pages 169-202, January.
    13. Terrance Odean, 1998. "Are Investors Reluctant to Realize Their Losses?," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 53(5), pages 1775-1798, October.
    14. Azevedo, Eduardo M. & Gottlieb, Daniel, 2012. "Risk-neutral firms can extract unbounded profits from consumers with prospect theory preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 147(3), pages 1291-1299.
    15. Levon Barseghyan & Francesca Molinari & Ted O'Donoghue & Joshua C. Teitelbaum, 2013. "The Nature of Risk Preferences: Evidence from Insurance Choices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(6), pages 2499-2529, October.
    16. Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2010. "What Comes to Mind," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 125(4), pages 1399-1433.
    17. Philip Grossman & Catherine Eckel, 2015. "Loving the long shot: Risk taking with skewed lotteries," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(3), pages 195-217, December.
    18. Ebert, Sebastian, 2015. "On skewed risks in economic models and experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 85-97.
    19. T. Clifton Green & Byoung-Hyoun Hwang, 2012. "Initial Public Offerings as Lotteries: Skewness Preference and First-Day Returns," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(2), pages 432-444, February.
    20. Shefrin, Hersh & Statman, Meir, 1985. "The Disposition to Sell Winners Too Early and Ride Losers Too Long: Theory and Evidence," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 40(3), pages 777-790, July.
    21. Hartog, Joop & Vijverberg, Wim P.M., 2007. "On compensation for risk aversion and skewness affection in wages," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(6), pages 938-956, December.
    22. Botond Koszegi & Adam Szeidl, 2013. "A Model of Focusing in Economic Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 128(1), pages 53-104.
    23. Marc Rieger & Mei Wang, 2006. "Cumulative prospect theory and the St. Petersburg paradox," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 28(3), pages 665-679, August.
    24. Fama, Eugene F & French, Kenneth R, 1992. "The Cross-Section of Expected Stock Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 47(2), pages 427-465, June.
    25. Jesse M. Shapiro, 2013. "Fungibility and Consumer Choice: Evidence from Commodity Price Shocks," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 128(4), pages 1449-1498.
    26. Cicchetti, Charles J & Dubin, Jeffrey A, 1994. "A Microeconometric Analysis of Risk Aversion and the Decision to Self-Insure," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 102(1), pages 169-186, February.
    27. Sebastian Ebert & Philipp Strack, 2015. "Until the Bitter End: On Prospect Theory in a Dynamic Context," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(4), pages 1618-1633, April.
    28. Kontek, Krzysztof, 2016. "A critical note on Salience Theory of choice under risk," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 168-171.
    29. Markus Dertwinkel-Kalt & Katrin Köhler & Mirjam R. J. Lange & Tobias Wenzel, 2017. "Demand Shifts Due to Salience Effects: Experimental Evidence," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 15(3), pages 626-653.
    30. Chunhachinda, Pornchai & Dandapani, Krishnan & Hamid, Shahid & Prakash, Arun J., 1997. "Portfolio selection and skewness: Evidence from international stock markets," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 143-167, February.
    31. Garrett, Thomas A. & Sobel, Russell S., 1999. "Gamblers favor skewness, not risk: Further evidence from United States' lottery games," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 85-90, April.
    32. Joseph Golec & Maurry Tamarkin, 1998. "Bettors Love Skewness, Not Risk, at the Horse Track," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 106(1), pages 205-225, February.
    33. Todd Mitton & Keith Vorkink, 2007. "Equilibrium Underdiversification and the Preference for Skewness," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 20(4), pages 1255-1288.
    34. Justin Sydnor, 2010. "(Over)insuring Modest Risks," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 2(4), pages 177-199, October.
    35. Nicholas C. Barberis, 2013. "Thirty Years of Prospect Theory in Economics: A Review and Assessment," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(1), pages 173-196, Winter.
    36. Thomas Åstebro & José Mata & Luís Santos-Pinto, 2015. "Skewness seeking: risk loving, optimism or overweighting of small probabilities?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 78(2), pages 189-208, February.
    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. Dertwinkel-Kalt, Markus & Wenzel, Tobias, 2019. "Focusing and framing of risky alternatives," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 289-304.
    2. Adrian Bruhin & Maha Manai & Luis Santos-Pinto, 2018. "Risk and Rationality:The Relative Importance of Probability Weighting and Choice Set Dependence," Cahiers de Recherches Economiques du Département d'économie 18.04, Université de Lausanne, Faculté des HEC, Département d’économie.
    3. Adrian Bruhin & Maha Manai & Luis Santos-Pinto, 2019. "Risk and Rationality:The Relative Importance of Probability Weighting and Choice Set Dependence," Cahiers de Recherches Economiques du Département d'économie 19.01new, Université de Lausanne, Faculté des HEC, Département d’économie.
    4. Ebert, Sebastian & Hilpert, Christian, 2019. "Skewness preference and the popularity of technical analysis," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 109(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. Markus Dertwinkel-Kalt & Mats Köster, 2018. "Salience and Skewness Preferences," CESifo Working Paper Series 7416, CESifo.
    2. Dertwinkel-Kalt, Markus & Köster, Mats, 2019. "Salience and Skewness Preferences," VfS Annual Conference 2019 (Leipzig): 30 Years after the Fall of the Berlin Wall - Democracy and Market Economy 203492, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    3. Ebert, Sebastian & Hilpert, Christian, 2019. "Skewness preference and the popularity of technical analysis," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    4. Brocas, Isabelle & Carrillo, Juan D & Giga, Aleksandar & Zapatero, Fernando, 2016. "Skewness Seeking in a Dynamic Portfolio Choice Experiment," CEPR Discussion Papers 11056, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    5. Douadia Bougherara & Lana Friesen & Céline Nauges, 2021. "Risk Taking with Left- and Right-Skewed Lotteries," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 62(1), pages 89-112, February.
    6. Douadia Bougherara & Lana Friesen & Céline Nauges, 2020. "Risk Taking with Left- and Right-Skewed Lotteries," Discussion Papers Series 619, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
    7. Jondeau, Eric & Zhang, Qunzi & Zhu, Xiaoneng, 2019. "Average skewness matters," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(1), pages 29-47.
    8. Giorgio Coricelli & Enrico Diecidue & Francesco D. Zaffuto, 2018. "Evidence for multiple strategies in choice under risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 56(2), pages 193-210, April.
    9. Grove, Wayne A. & Jetter, Michael & Papps, Kerry L., 2018. "Career Lotto: Labor Supply in Winner-Take-All Markets," IZA Discussion Papers 12012, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    10. Aissia, Dorsaf Ben, 2014. "IPO first-day returns: Skewness preference, investor sentiment and uncertainty underlying factors," Review of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 148-154.
    11. Dertwinkel-Kalt, Markus & Wenzel, Tobias, 2019. "Focusing and framing of risky alternatives," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 289-304.
    12. Stelios Arvanitis & O. Scaillet & Nikolas Topaloglou, 2020. "Spanning analysis of stock market anomalies under Prospect Stochastic Dominance," Swiss Finance Institute Research Paper Series 20-18, Swiss Finance Institute.
    13. Henderson, Vicky & Hobson, David & Tse, Alex S.L., 2018. "Probability weighting, stop-loss and the disposition effect," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 360-397.
    14. Stephen G. Dimmock & Roy Kouwenberg & Olivia S. Mitchell & Kim Peijnenburg, 2018. "Household Portfolio Underdiversification and Probability Weighting: Evidence from the Field," NBER Working Papers 24928, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Matyska, Branka, 2021. "Salience, systemic risk and spectral risk measures as capital requirements," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    16. Byun, Suk-Joon & Kim, Da-Hea, 2016. "Gambling preference and individual equity option returns," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(1), pages 155-174.
    17. Felix Holzmeister & Jürgen Huber & Michael Kirchler & Florian Lindner & Utz Weitzel & Stefan Zeisberger, 2020. "What Drives Risk Perception? A Global Survey with Financial Professionals and Laypeople," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(9), pages 3977-4002, September.
    18. Dertwinkel-Kalt, Markus & Köster, Mats, 2015. "Violations of first-order stochastic dominance as salience effects," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 42-46.
    19. Wang, Huijun & Yan, Jinghua & Yu, Jianfeng, 2017. "Reference-dependent preferences and the risk–return trade-off," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 395-414.
    20. Li An & Huijun Wang & Jian Wang & Jianfeng Yu, 2020. "Lottery-Related Anomalies: The Role of Reference-Dependent Preferences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 473-501, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    stimulus-driven attention; salience theory; focusing; certainty equivalent; monotonicity; skewness preferences;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • 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:zbw:dicedp:248. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/diduede.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 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/diduede.html .

    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.