IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/joecth/v54y2013i2p305-333.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is there a plausible theory for decision under risk? A dual calibration critique

Author

Listed:
  • James Cox
  • Vjollca Sadiraj
  • Bodo Vogt
  • Utteeyo Dasgupta

Abstract

Can any prominent theory of decision under risk rationalize both small-stakes risk aversion and large-stakes risk aversion? Do some prominent theories fail to rationalize patterns of same-stakes risk aversion? How do reference payoffs enter in the answer to these questions? What would be the characteristics of a theory of decision under risk that would be immune to calibration critique? We offer a theoretical duality analysis that addresses these questions. We report dual propositions and corollaries that calibrate the implications of nonlinear transformation of probabilities or payoffs (or both). We also report several experiments that provide data on the empirical relevance of the two types of calibration patterns. Copyright Springer-Verlag 2013

Suggested Citation

  • James Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj & Bodo Vogt & Utteeyo Dasgupta, 2013. "Is there a plausible theory for decision under risk? A dual calibration critique," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 54(2), pages 305-333, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:joecth:v:54:y:2013:i:2:p:305-333
    DOI: 10.1007/s00199-012-0712-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s00199-012-0712-4
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00199-012-0712-4?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Han Bleichrodt & Louis Eeckhoudt, 2005. "Saving under rank-dependent utility," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 25(2), pages 505-511, February.
    3. Zvi Safra & Uzi Segal, 2008. "Calibration Results for Non-Expected Utility Theories," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 76(5), pages 1143-1166, September.
    4. Yaari, Menahem E, 1987. "The Dual Theory of Choice under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(1), pages 95-115, January.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Ariel Rubinstein, 2006. "Dilemmas of an Economic Theorist," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(4), pages 865-883, July.
    8. Matthew J. Ryan & Rhema Vaithianathan, 2003. "Medical insurance with rank-dependent utility," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 22(3), pages 689-698, October.
    9. Vjollca Sadiraj, 2014. "Probabilistic risk attitudes and local risk aversion: a paradox," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(4), pages 443-454, December.
    10. James Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj & Ulrich Schmidt, 2015. "Paradoxes and mechanisms for choice under risk," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(2), pages 215-250, June.
    11. Lars Tyge Nielsen & Fatma Lajeri, 2000. "Parametric characterizations of risk aversion and prudence," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 15(2), pages 469-476.
    12. Harry Markowitz, 1952. "The Utility of Wealth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 60(2), pages 151-151.
    13. Nicholas Barberis & Ming Huang & Richard H. Thaler, 2006. "Individual Preferences, Monetary Gambles, and Stock Market Participation: A Case for Narrow Framing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(4), pages 1069-1090, September.
    14. Matthew Rabin, 2000. "Risk Aversion and Expected-Utility Theory: A Calibration Theorem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(5), pages 1281-1292, September.
    15. Fabio Maccheroni, 2004. "Yaari's dual theory without the completeness axiom," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 23(3), pages 701-714, March.
    16. Gerry Boyle & Denis Conniffe, 2006. "Compatibility of Expected Utility and µ/s Approaches to Risk for a Class of Non Location-Scale Distributions," Economics Department Working Paper Series n1670406, Department of Economics, National University of Ireland - Maynooth.
    17. Eduardo Zambrano, 2008. "Expected utility inequalities: theory and applications," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 36(1), pages 147-158, July.
    18. Wakker,Peter P., 2010. "Prospect Theory," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521765015.
    19. Thomas Eichner & Andreas Wagener, 2003. "More on parametric characterizations of risk aversion and prudence," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 21(4), pages 895-900, June.
    20. Zvi Safra & Uzi Segal, 2009. "Risk aversion in the small and in the large: Calibration results for betweenness functionals," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 27-37, February.
    21. William Neilson, 2001. "Calibration results for rank-dependent expected utility," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(10), pages 1-5.
    22. Marco LiCalzi, 2000. "Upper and lower bounds for expected utility," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 16(2), pages 489-502, September.
    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. Mel Win Khaw & Ziang Li & Michael Woodford, 2017. "Risk Aversion as a Perceptual Bias," NBER Working Papers 23294, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Utteeyo Dasgupta & Subha Mani & Smriti Sharma & Saurabh Singhal, 2016. "Eliciting risk preferences: Firefighting in the field," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2016-47, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    3. Fakir, Adnan M.S., 2021. "Schooling and small stakes risk aversion: Insights from a rural-poor community," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    4. Mel Win Khaw & Ziang Li & Michael Woodford, 2021. "Cognitive Imprecision and Small-Stakes Risk Aversion [Linear Mapping of Numbers onto Space Requires Attention]," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 88(4), pages 1979-2013.
    5. Steffen Andersen & James C. Cox & Glenn W. Harrison & Morten Lau & Elisabet E. Rutstroem & Vjollca Sadiraj, 2011. "Asset Integration and Attitudes to Risk: Theory and Evidence," Department of Economics Working Papers 2011_10, Durham University, Department of Economics.
    6. Zambrano, Eduardo, 2020. "Risk attitudes over small and large stakes recalibrated," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    7. Vjollca Sadiraj, 2014. "Probabilistic risk attitudes and local risk aversion: a paradox," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(4), pages 443-454, December.
    8. Minqiang Li, 2014. "On Aumann and Serrano’s economic index of risk," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 55(2), pages 415-437, February.
    9. Stefan A. Lipman & Arthur E. Attema, 2019. "Rabin's paradox for health outcomes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(8), pages 1064-1071, August.
    10. Siebert, Jan, 2020. "Are the poor more impatient than the rich? Experimental evidence on the effect of (lab) wealth on intertemporal preferences," Ruhr Economic Papers 845, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    11. Jung, SeEun & Choe, Chung & Oaxaca, Ronald L., 2018. "Gender wage gaps and risky vs. secure employment: An experimental analysis," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 112-121.
    12. Han Bleichrodt & Jason N. Doctor & Yu Gao & Chen Li & Daniella Meeker & Peter P. Wakker, 2019. "Resolving Rabin’s paradox," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 59(3), pages 239-260, December.
    13. Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten I. & Ross, Don & Swarthout, J. Todd, 2017. "Small stakes risk aversion in the laboratory: A reconsideration," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 24-28.
    14. Dasgupta, Utteeyo & Mani, Subha & Sharma, Smriti & Singhal, Saurabh, 2016. "Eliciting Risk Preferences: Firefighting in the Field," IZA Discussion Papers 9765, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    15. Kelvin Balcombe & Iain Fraser, 2015. "Parametric preference functionals under risk in the gain domain: A Bayesian analysis," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 161-187, April.
    16. Schosser, Stephan & Trarbach, Judith N. & Vogt, Bodo, 2016. "How does the perception of pain determine the selection between different treatments?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 131(PB), pages 174-182.
    17. Aurelian DIACONU & Doina AVRAM, 2017. "General Aspects of Risk and Uncertainty in Making Financial – Economic Decisions," Romanian Statistical Review Supplement, Romanian Statistical Review, vol. 65(6), pages 40-50, June.

    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. Han Bleichrodt & Jason N. Doctor & Yu Gao & Chen Li & Daniella Meeker & Peter P. Wakker, 2019. "Resolving Rabin’s paradox," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 59(3), pages 239-260, December.
    2. Steffen Andersen & James C. Cox & Glenn W. Harrison & Morten Lau & Elisabet E. Rutstroem & Vjollca Sadiraj, 2011. "Asset Integration and Attitudes to Risk: Theory and Evidence," Department of Economics Working Papers 2011_10, Durham University, Department of Economics.
    3. Olivier L'Haridon & Craig S. Webb & Horst Zank, 2021. "An Effective and Simple Tool for Measuring Loss Aversion," Economics Discussion Paper Series 2107, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    4. Epper, Thomas & Fehr-Duda, Helga, 2017. "A Tale of Two Tails: On the Coexistence of Overweighting and Underweighting of Rare Extreme Events," Economics Working Paper Series 1705, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.
    5. Matthew Rabin & Georg Weizsacker, 2009. "Narrow Bracketing and Dominated Choices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(4), pages 1508-1543, September.
    6. Freeman, David, 2015. "Calibration without reduction for non-expected utility," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 158(PA), pages 21-32.
    7. Xiaosheng Mu & Luciano Pomatto & Philipp Strack & Omer Tamuz, 2020. "Background risk and small-stakes risk aversion," Papers 2010.08033, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2021.
    8. Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten I. & Ross, Don & Swarthout, J. Todd, 2017. "Small stakes risk aversion in the laboratory: A reconsideration," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 24-28.
    9. Luke Lindsay, 2013. "The arguments of utility: Preference reversals in expected utility of income models," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 175-189, April.
    10. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten, 2017. "On the applicability of maximum likelihood methods: From experimental to financial data," SAFE Working Paper Series 148, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2017.
    11. Uri Gneezy & Yoram Halevy & Brian Hall & Theo Offerman & Jeroen van de Ven, 2024. "How Real is Hypothetical? A High-Stakes Test of the Allais Paradox," Working Papers tecipa-783, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.
    12. Vjollca Sadiraj, 2014. "Probabilistic risk attitudes and local risk aversion: a paradox," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(4), pages 443-454, December.
    13. Dorian Jullien, 2018. "Under Risk, Over Time, Regarding Other People: Language and Rationality within Three Dimensions," Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, in: Including a Symposium on Latin American Monetary Thought: Two Centuries in Search of Originality, volume 36, pages 119-155, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    14. 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.
    15. Michal Lewandowski, 2014. "Buying and selling price for risky lotteries and expected utility theory with gambling wealth," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 253-283, June.
    16. 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.
    17. Cox, James C. & Sadiraj, Vjollca, 2006. "Small- and large-stakes risk aversion: Implications of concavity calibration for decision theory," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 45-60, July.
    18. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Vitalie Spinu, 2020. "Searching for the Reference Point," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 93-112, January.
    19. Haug, Jørgen & Hens, Thorsten & Woehrmann, Peter, 2013. "Risk aversion in the large and in the small," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 310-313.
    20. Wing-Keung Wong & Chenghu Ma, 2008. "Preferences over location-scale family," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 37(1), pages 119-146, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Risk aversion; Calibration; Duality; Reference dependence; Experiments; C91; D81;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    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:spr:joecth:v:54:y:2013:i:2:p:305-333. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.