IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ordeca/v18y2021i1p41-77.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Basic Geometric Dispersion Theory of Decision Making Under Risk: Asymmetric Risk Relativity, New Predictions of Empirical Behaviors, and Risk Triad

Author

Listed:
  • Behnam Malakooti

    (Department of Electrical, Computers, and Systems Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio 44106)

  • Mohamed Komaki

    (Marketing and Business Analytics Department, College of Business, Texas A&M University–Commerce, Commerce, Texas 75428)

  • Camelia Al-Najjar

    (Department of Electrical, Computers, and Systems Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio 44106)

Abstract

Many studies have spotlighted significant applications of expected utility theory (EUT), cumulative prospect theory (CPT), and mean-variance in assessing risks. We illustrate that these models and their extensions are unable to predict risk behaviors accurately in out-of-sample empirical studies. EUT uses a nonlinear value (utility) function of consequences but is linear in probabilities, which has been criticized as its primary weakness. Although mean-variance is nonlinear in probabilities, it is symmetric, contradicts first-order stochastic dominance, and uses the same standard deviation for both risk aversion and risk proneness. In this paper, we explore a special case of geometric dispersion theory (GDT) that is simultaneously nonlinear in both consequences and probabilities. It complies with first-order stochastic dominance and is asymmetric to represent the mixed risk-averse and risk-prone behaviors of the decision makers. GDT is a triad model that uses expected value, risk-averse dispersion, and risk-prone dispersion. GDT uses only two parameters, z and z X ; these constants remain the same regardless of the scale of risk problem. We compare GDT to several other risk dispersion models that are based on EUT and/or mean-variance, and identify verified risk paradoxes that contradict EUT, CPT, and mean-variance but are easily explainable by GDT. We demonstrate that GDT predicts out-of-sample empirical risk behaviors far more accurately than EUT, CPT, mean-variance, and other risk dispersion models. We also discuss the underlying assumptions, meanings, and perspectives of GDT and how it reflects risk relativity and risk triad. This paper covers basic GDT, which is a special case of general GDT of Malakooti [Malakooti (2020) Geometric dispersion theory of decision making under risk: Generalizing EUT, RDEU, & CPT with out-of-sample empirical studies. Working paper, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.].

Suggested Citation

  • Behnam Malakooti & Mohamed Komaki & Camelia Al-Najjar, 2021. "Basic Geometric Dispersion Theory of Decision Making Under Risk: Asymmetric Risk Relativity, New Predictions of Empirical Behaviors, and Risk Triad," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 18(1), pages 41-77, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ordeca:v:18:y:2021:i:1:p:41-77
    DOI: 10.1287/deca.2019.0404
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/deca.2019.0404
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/deca.2019.0404?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. R. Rockafellar & Stan Uryasev & Michael Zabarankin, 2006. "Generalized deviations in risk analysis," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 51-74, January.
    2. repec:bla:econom:v:65:y:1998:i:260:p:581-98 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Guido Baltussen & Thierry Post & Pim van Vliet, 2006. "Violations of Cumulative Prospect Theory in Mixed Gambles with Moderate Probabilities," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(8), pages 1288-1290, August.
    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. Haim Levy, 2008. "First Degree Stochastic Dominance Violations: Decision Weights and Bounded Rationality," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(528), pages 759-774, April.
    6. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    7. Colin Camerer & Teck-Hua Ho, 1999. "Experience-weighted Attraction Learning in Normal Form Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 67(4), pages 827-874, July.
    8. Haim Levy, 2008. "First Degree Stochastic Dominance Violations: Decision Weights and Bounded Rationality," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(528), pages 759-774, April.
    9. Michael H. Birnbaum & Jeffrey P. Bahra, 2007. "Gain-Loss Separability and Coalescing in Risky Decision Making," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(6), pages 1016-1028, June.
    10. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    11. George Wu & Alex B. Markle, 2008. "An Empirical Test of Gain-Loss Separability in Prospect Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(7), pages 1322-1335, July.
    12. Chris Starmer, 2000. "Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 332-382, June.
    13. van Heerwaarden, A. E. & Kaas, R., 1992. "The Dutch premium principle," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 129-133, August.
    14. Machina, Mark J, 1982. ""Expected Utility" Analysis without the Independence Axiom," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(2), pages 277-323, March.
    15. Chen, Zhiping & Wang, Yi, 2008. "Two-sided coherent risk measures and their application in realistic portfolio optimization," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(12), pages 2667-2673, December.
    16. Blavatskyy, Pavlo R., 2012. "The Troika paradox," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 236-239.
    17. K. Borch, 1969. "A Note on Uncertainty and Indifference Curves," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 36(1), pages 1-4.
    18. Svetlozar Rachev & Sergio Ortobelli & Stoyan Stoyanov & Frank J. Fabozzi & Almira Biglova, 2008. "Desirable Properties Of An Ideal Risk Measure In Portfolio Theory," International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance (IJTAF), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 11(01), pages 19-54.
    19. Alois Pichler, 2017. "A quantitative comparison of risk measures," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 254(1), pages 251-275, July.
    20. Keller, L. Robin & Sarin, Rakesh K. & Weber, Martin, 1986. "Empirical investigation of some properties of the perceived riskiness of gambles," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 114-130, August.
    21. Rothschild, Michael & Stiglitz, Joseph E., 1970. "Increasing risk: I. A definition," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 225-243, September.
    22. Pavlo R. Blavatskyy, 2010. "Modifying the Mean-Variance Approach to Avoid Violations of Stochastic Dominance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(11), pages 2050-2057, November.
    23. S. Schreider & P. Zeephongsekul & B. Abbasi & M. Fernandes, 2013. "Game theoretic approach for fertilizer application: looking for the propensity to cooperate," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 206(1), pages 385-400, July.
    24. Behnam Malakooti & Ying Q. Zhou, 1994. "Feedforward Artificial Neural Networks for Solving Discrete Multiple Criteria Decision Making Problems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(11), pages 1542-1561, November.
    25. Hans Föllmer & Alexander Schied, 2002. "Convex measures of risk and trading constraints," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 6(4), pages 429-447.
    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. Peter Brooks & Simon Peters & Horst Zank, 2014. "Risk behavior for gain, loss, and mixed prospects," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(2), pages 153-182, August.
    2. David B. BROWN & Enrico G. DE GIORGI & Melvyn SIM, 2009. "A Satiscing Alternative to Prospect Theory," Swiss Finance Institute Research Paper Series 09-19, Swiss Finance Institute.
    3. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.
    4. Thomas Kourouxous & Thomas Bauer, 2019. "Violations of dominance in decision-making," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(1), pages 209-239, April.
    5. Zvi Safra & Uzi Segal, 2005. "Are Universal Preferences Possible? Calibration Results for Non-Expected Utility Theories," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 633, Boston College Department of Economics.
    6. Birnbaum, Michael H. & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2010. "Allais paradoxes can be reversed by presenting choices in canonical split form," Kiel Working Papers 1615, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    7. Salvatore Greco & Fabio Rindone, 2014. "The bipolar Choquet integral representation," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(1), pages 1-29, June.
    8. Blavatskyy, Pavlo, 2016. "Probability weighting and L-moments," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 255(1), pages 103-109.
    9. Wakker, Peter P., 2023. "A criticism of Bernheim & Sprenger's (2020) tests of rank dependence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    10. George Wu & Alex B. Markle, 2008. "An Empirical Test of Gain-Loss Separability in Prospect Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(7), pages 1322-1335, July.
    11. Cillo, Alessandra & Delquié, Philippe, 2014. "Mean-risk analysis with enhanced behavioral content," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(3), pages 764-775.
    12. Phillips Peter J. & Pohl Gabriela, 2018. "The Deferral of Attacks: SP/A Theory as a Model of Terrorist Choice when Losses Are Inevitable," Open Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 71-85, February.
    13. Francesco Cesarone & Massimiliano Corradini & Lorenzo Lampariello & Jessica Riccioni, 2023. "A new behavioral model for portfolio selection using the Half-Full/Half-Empty approach," Papers 2312.10749, arXiv.org.
    14. Chiu, W. Henry, 2019. "Comparative statics in an ordinal theory of choice under risk," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 113-123.
    15. Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2008. "Risk Aversion in Cumulative Prospect Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(1), pages 208-216, January.
    16. Bernard, Carole & Chen, Jit Seng & Vanduffel, Steven, 2015. "Rationalizing investors’ choices," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 10-23.
    17. Michal Skořepa, 2007. "Zpochybnění deskriptivnosti teorie očekávaného užitku [Doubts about the descriptive validity of the expected utility theory]," Politická ekonomie, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2007(1), pages 106-120.
    18. Enrico G. De Giorgi & David B. Brown & Melvyn Sim, 2010. "Dual representation of choice and aspirational preferences," University of St. Gallen Department of Economics working paper series 2010 2010-07, Department of Economics, University of St. Gallen.
    19. W. Wong & R. Chan, 2008. "Prospect and Markowitz stochastic dominance," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 105-129, January.
    20. Righi, Marcelo Brutti & Borenstein, Denis, 2018. "A simulation comparison of risk measures for portfolio optimization," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 105-112.

    More about this item

    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:inm:ordeca:v:18:y:2021:i:1:p:41-77. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.