IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sgh/annals/i51y2018p169-184.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the Arrow-Pratt risk aversion model for the generalized Choquet integral

Author

Listed:
  • Marek Kałuszka

    (Politechnika Łódzka, Wydział Fizyki Technicznej, Informatyki i Matematyki Stosowanej)

  • Wioletta Szeligowska

    (Politechnika Łódzka, Wydział Fizyki Technicznej, Informatyki i Matematyki Stosowanej)

Abstract

In the 1970s Kahneman and Tversky conducted a series of experiments which suggested that people do not behave accordingly to the von Neumann-Morgenstern’s Expected Utility Theory. Therefore, they proposed an alternative theory, called the Cumulative Prospect Theory, in which they used the Choquet integral with respect to distorted probability measures to describe decision making in risk and uncertainty conditions. The paper presents the generalized Arrow-Pratt risk aversion model, when the classic expected value is replaced by the generalized Choquet integral. To do this, we require necessary and sufficient conditions for the Jensen type inequality for the generalized Choquet integral with respect to arbitrary monotone measure, that is not an additive set function. We will provide some results of this type and point the difficulties that show up without the additivity assumption.

Suggested Citation

  • Marek Kałuszka & Wioletta Szeligowska, 2018. "On the Arrow-Pratt risk aversion model for the generalized Choquet integral," Collegium of Economic Analysis Annals, Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of Economic Analysis, issue 51, pages 169-184.
    • Handle: RePEc:sgh:annals:i:51:y:2018:p:169-184
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://rocznikikae.sgh.waw.pl/p/roczniki_kae_z51_08.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Jian Zhou & Yuanyuan Liu & Xiaoxia Zhang & Xin Gu & Di Wang, 2017. "Uncertain risk aversion," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 615-624, March.
    3. Wioletta Szeligowska & Marek Kaluszka, 2016. "On Jensen's inequality for generalized Choquet integral with an application to risk aversion," Papers 1609.00554, arXiv.org.
    4. 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..
    5. Kaluszka, Marek & Krzeszowiec, Michał, 2013. "An Iterativity Condition For The Mean-Value Principle Under Cumulative Prospect Theory," ASTIN Bulletin, Cambridge University Press, vol. 43(1), pages 61-71, January.
    6. Kaluszka, Marek & Krzeszowiec, Michał, 2012. "Mean-Value Principle under Cumulative Prospect Theory," ASTIN Bulletin, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(1), pages 103-122, May.
    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. Marek Kałuszka & Michał Krzeszowiec, 2013. "Iteracyjność składek ubezpieczeniowych w ujęciu teorii skumulowanej perspektywy i teorii nieokreśloności," Collegium of Economic Analysis Annals, Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of Economic Analysis, issue 31, pages 45-56.
    2. Tiantian Mao & Jun Cai, 2018. "Risk measures based on behavioural economics theory," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 367-393, April.
    3. Wioletta Szeligowska & Marek Kaluszka, 2016. "On Jensen's inequality for generalized Choquet integral with an application to risk aversion," Papers 1609.00554, arXiv.org.
    4. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. & Botzen, W.J.W., 2015. "Monetary valuation of the social cost of CO2 emissions: A critical survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 33-46.
    5. Shoji, Isao & Kanehiro, Sumei, 2016. "Disposition effect as a behavioral trading activity elicited by investors' different risk preferences," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 104-112.
    6. Jonathan Meng & Feng Fu, 2020. "Understanding Gambling Behavior and Risk Attitudes Using Cryptocurrency-based Casino Blockchain Data," Papers 2008.05653, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2020.
    7. Daniel Fonseca Costa & Francisval Carvalho & Bruno César Moreira & José Willer Prado, 2017. "Bibliometric analysis on the association between behavioral finance and decision making with cognitive biases such as overconfidence, anchoring effect and confirmation bias," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1775-1799, June.
    8. Boone, Jan & Sadrieh, Abdolkarim & van Ours, Jan C., 2009. "Experiments on unemployment benefit sanctions and job search behavior," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(8), pages 937-951, November.
    9. Castro, Luciano de & Galvao, Antonio F. & Kim, Jeong Yeol & Montes-Rojas, Gabriel & Olmo, Jose, 2022. "Experiments on portfolio selection: A comparison between quantile preferences and expected utility decision models," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    10. Jos'e Cl'audio do Nascimento, 2019. "Behavioral Biases and Nonadditive Dynamics in Risk Taking: An Experimental Investigation," Papers 1908.01709, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2023.
    11. Francesco GUALA, 2017. "Preferences: Neither Behavioural nor Mental," Departmental Working Papers 2017-05, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    12. Bin Zou, 2017. "Optimal Investment In Hedge Funds Under Loss Aversion," International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance (IJTAF), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(03), pages 1-32, May.
    13. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2019. "What are axiomatizations good for?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(3), pages 339-359, May.
    14. Wiafe, Osei K. & Basu, Anup K. & Chen, En Te, 2020. "Portfolio choice after retirement: Should self-annuitisation strategies hold more equities?," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 241-255.
    15. Nicholas Barberis, 2012. "A Model of Casino Gambling," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(1), pages 35-51, January.
    16. Lovric, M. & Kaymak, U. & Spronk, J., 2008. "A Conceptual Model of Investor Behavior," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2008-030-F&A, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    17. Goytom Abraha Kahsay & Daniel Osberghaus, 2018. "Storm Damage and Risk Preferences: Panel Evidence from Germany," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 301-318, September.
    18. Carolin Bock & Maximilian Schmidt, 2015. "Should I stay, or should I go? – How fund dynamics influence venture capital exit decisions," Review of Financial Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 68-82, November.
    19. Hooi Hooi Lean & Michael McAleer & Wing-Keung Wong, 2013. "Risk-averse and Risk-seeking Investor Preferences for Oil Spot and Futures," Documentos de Trabajo del ICAE 2013-31, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Instituto Complutense de Análisis Económico, revised Aug 2013.
    20. Paredes-Frigolett, Harold, 2016. "Modeling the effect of responsible research and innovation in quadruple helix innovation systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 126-133.

    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:sgh:annals:i:51:y:2018:p:169-184. 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: Michał Bernardelli (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sgwawpl.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.