IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rsr/supplm/v64y2016i1p77-82.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk Aversion and Individual Preferences Modelling

Author

Listed:
  • Constantin ANGHELACHE

    (Bucharest University of Economic Studies, “Artifex” University Bucharest)

  • Madalina Gabriela ANGHEL

    (Artifex University Bucharest)

  • Aurelian DIACONU

    (Artifex University Bucharest)

Abstract

Confronting risky situations is a feature of any decision making, in general, but, especially for specialized decision making contexts. Risk aversion concentrates the problems of modeling individual preferences. Models can grasp with accuracy and largely enough the fundamental human tendencies. As consequence, understanding economic behavior confronted to risk might be understood. Modeling market forecasting activities is possible based on “marginal consumer”. Thus, the vague use of mathematical instruments is necessary, but not enough as condition to develop an economic analysis. A historical approach of risk analysis might bring an idea regarding the development of the concept instruments used today when analyzing “risky choices”

Suggested Citation

  • Constantin ANGHELACHE & Madalina Gabriela ANGHEL & Aurelian DIACONU, 2016. "Risk Aversion and Individual Preferences Modelling," Romanian Statistical Review Supplement, Romanian Statistical Review, vol. 64(1), pages 77-82, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:rsr:supplm:v:64:y:2016:i:1:p:77-82
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.revistadestatistica.ro/supliment/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/RRS_01_2016_A12.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yaari, Menahem E, 1987. "The Dual Theory of Choice under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(1), pages 95-115, January.
    2. Segal, Uzi & Spivak, Avia, 1990. "First order versus second order risk aversion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 111-125, June.
    3. Ross, Stephen A, 1981. "Some Stronger Measures of Risk Aversion in the Small and the Large with Applications," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(3), pages 621-638, May.
    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. Oleksandr Dorokhov & Liudmyla Dorokhova & Milica Delibasic & Justas Streimikis, 2017. "Consumer Behavior Modeling - Fuzzy Logic Model for Air Purifiers Choosing," Montenegrin Journal of Economics, Economic Laboratory for Transition Research (ELIT), vol. 13(4), pages 61-77.
    2. Madalina-Gabriela ANGHEL & Marian SFETCU & Gyorgy BODO & Doina BUREA, 2017. "Bank Risk Management," Romanian Statistical Review Supplement, Romanian Statistical Review, vol. 65(11), pages 87-94, November.
    3. Constantin Anghelache & Bodo Gyorgy, 2016. "Theoretical aspects regarding systemic risk and managerial decisions during the crisis," Romanian Statistical Review Supplement, Romanian Statistical Review, vol. 64(12), pages 110-116, December.
    4. Aurelian DIACONU & Alexandru BADIU & Doina AVRAM & Doina BUREA & Marius POPOVICI, 2017. "Operational Risk Management," Romanian Statistical Review Supplement, Romanian Statistical Review, vol. 65(5), pages 221-229, May.

    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. Louis R. Eeckhoudt & Roger J. A. Laeven, 2021. "Probability Premium and Attitude Towards Probability," Papers 2105.00054, arXiv.org.
    2. Henri Loubergé, 1998. "Risk and Insurance Economics 25 Years After," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 23(4), pages 540-567, October.
    3. Epstein, Larry G. & Zin, Stanley E., 2001. "The independence axiom and asset returns," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 8(5), pages 537-572, December.
    4. Haliassos, Michael & Hassapis, Christis, 2001. "Non-expected Utility, Saving and Portfolios," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 111(468), pages 69-102, January.
    5. Courtault, Jean-Michel & Gayant, Jean-Pascal, 1998. "Local risk aversion in the rank dependent expected utility model: First order versus second order effects," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 59(2), pages 207-212, May.
    6. Michèle Cohen & Isaac Meilijson, 2011. "In search of a characterization of the preference for safety under the Choquet model," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 11031, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    7. Chateauneuf, Alain & Cohen, Michele & Meilijson, Isaac, 2004. "Four notions of mean-preserving increase in risk, risk attitudes and applications to the rank-dependent expected utility model," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(5), pages 547-571, August.
    8. Border, Kim C. & Segal, Uzi, 1997. "Coherent Odds and Subjective Probability," University of Western Ontario, Departmental Research Report Series 9717, University of Western Ontario, Department of Economics.
    9. Alain Chateauneuf & Ghizlane Lakhnati & Eric Langlais, 2016. "On the precautionary motive for savings and prudence in the rank-dependent utility framework," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 61(1), pages 169-182, January.
    10. Stephen G Dimmock & Roy Kouwenberg & Olivia S Mitchell & Kim Peijnenburg, 2021. "Household Portfolio Underdiversification and Probability Weighting: Evidence from the Field," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 34(9), pages 4524-4563.
    11. Dionne, Georges & Li, Jingyuan, 2014. "When can expected utility handle first-order risk aversion?," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 403-422.
    12. 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.
    13. Eeckhoudt, Louis R. & Hammitt, James K., 2004. "Does risk aversion increase the value of mortality risk?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 13-29, January.
    14. Safra, Zvi & Segal, Uzi, 2002. "On the Economic Meaning of Machina's Frechet Differentiability Assumption," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 104(2), pages 450-461, June.
    15. Kam Yu, 2009. "Measuring the Output and Prices of the Lottery Sector: An Application of Implicit Expected Utility Theory," NBER Chapters, in: Price Index Concepts and Measurement, pages 405-425, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Hindriks, Jean & De Donder, Philippe, 2003. "The politics of redistributive social insurance," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(12), pages 2639-2660, December.
    17. Michèle Cohen & Isaac Meilijson, 2014. "Preference for safety under the Choquet model: in search of a characterization," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 55(3), pages 619-642, April.
    18. Bruno Deffains & Eric Langlais, 2009. "Legal Interpretative Process and Litigants’ Cognitive Biases," Working Papers hal-04140887, HAL.
    19. Alain Chateauneuf & Michéle Cohen & Isaac Meilijson, 2005. "More pessimism than greediness: a characterization of monotone risk aversion in the rank-dependent expected utility model," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 25(3), pages 649-667, April.
    20. Jean-Louis Arcand & Grégoire Rota Graziosi, 2005. "Tax Compliance and Rank Dependent Expected Utility," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 30(1), pages 57-69, June.

    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:rsr:supplm:v:64:y:2016:i:1:p:77-82. 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: Adrian Visoiu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/stagvro.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.