IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/metcap/v24y2022i2d10.1007_s11009-022-09939-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fraction-Degree Reference Dependent Stochastic Dominance

Author

Listed:
  • Jianping Yang

    (Zhejiang Sci-Tech University)

  • Chaoqun Zhao

    (Zhejiang Sci-Tech University)

  • Weiru Chen

    (Zhejiang Sci-Tech University)

  • Diwei Zhou

    (Loughborough University)

  • Shuguang Han

    (Zhejiang Sci-Tech University
    University of Alberta)

Abstract

For addressing the Allis-type anomalies, a fractional degree reference dependent stochastic dominance rule is developed which is a generalization of the integer degree reference dependent stochastic dominance rules. This new rule can effectively explain why the risk comparison does not satisfy translational invariance and scaling invariance in some cases. The rule also has a good property that it is compatible with the endowment effect of risk. This rule can help risk-averse but not absolute risk-averse decision makers to compare risks relative to reference points. We present some tractable equivalent integral conditions for the fractional degree reference dependent stochastic dominance rule, as well as some practical applications for the rule in economics and finance.

Suggested Citation

  • Jianping Yang & Chaoqun Zhao & Weiru Chen & Diwei Zhou & Shuguang Han, 2022. "Fraction-Degree Reference Dependent Stochastic Dominance," Methodology and Computing in Applied Probability, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 1193-1219, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:metcap:v:24:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s11009-022-09939-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s11009-022-09939-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11009-022-09939-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11009-022-09939-0?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. Guo, Dongmei & Hu, Yi & Wang, Shouyang & Zhao, Lin, 2016. "Comparing risks with reference points: A stochastic dominance approach," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 105-116.
    2. 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.
    3. Botond Kőszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2006. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(4), pages 1133-1165.
    4. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    5. G. Hanoch & H. Levy, 1969. "The Efficiency Analysis of Choices Involving Risk," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 36(3), pages 335-346.
    6. Harry Markowitz, 1952. "The Utility of Wealth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 60(2), pages 151-151.
    7. Matthew Rabin, 2000. "Risk Aversion and Expected-Utility Theory: A Calibration Theorem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(5), pages 1281-1292, September.
    8. Vijay S. Bawa, 1982. "Research Bibliography---Stochastic Dominance: A Research Bibliography," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(6), pages 698-712, June.
    9. Richard H. Thaler & Eric J. Johnson, 1990. "Gambling with the House Money and Trying to Break Even: The Effects of Prior Outcomes on Risky Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(6), pages 643-660, June.
    10. Ingolf Dittmann & Ernst Maug & Oliver Spalt, 2010. "Sticks or Carrots? Optimal CEO Compensation when Managers Are Loss Averse," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 65(6), pages 2015-2050, December.
    11. Segal, Uzi, 1987. "Some remarks on Quiggin's anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 145-154, March.
    12. Alfred Müller & Marco Scarsini & Ilia Tsetlin & Robert L. Winkler, 2017. "Between First- and Second-Order Stochastic Dominance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(9), pages 2933-2947, September.
    13. Machina, Mark J, 1982. ""Expected Utility" Analysis without the Independence Axiom," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(2), pages 277-323, March.
    14. Charles Sprenger, 2015. "An Endowment Effect for Risk: Experimental Tests of Stochastic Reference Points," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 123(6), pages 1456-1499.
    15. Haim Levy, 1992. "Stochastic Dominance and Expected Utility: Survey and Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(4), pages 555-593, April.
    16. Botond Koszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2007. "Reference-Dependent Risk Attitudes," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(4), pages 1047-1073, September.
    17. Rothschild, Michael & Stiglitz, Joseph E., 1970. "Increasing risk: I. A definition," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 225-243, September.
    18. Milton Friedman & L. J. Savage, 1948. "The Utility Analysis of Choices Involving Risk," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(4), pages 279-279.
    19. David E. Bell, 1988. "The Value of Pre-Decision Side Bets for Utility Maximizers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(6), pages 797-800, June.
    20. Sugden, Robert, 2003. "Reference-dependent subjective expected utility," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 111(2), pages 172-191, August.
    21. David E. Bell, 1985. "Disappointment in Decision Making Under Uncertainty," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(1), pages 1-27, 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. Mao, Tiantian & Wang, Ruodu, 2022. "Fractional stochastic dominance in rank-dependent utility and cumulative prospect theory," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(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. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Vitalie Spinu, 2020. "Searching for the Reference Point," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 93-112, January.
    2. Alfred Müller & Marco Scarsini & Ilia Tsetlin & Robert L. Winkler, 2017. "Between First- and Second-Order Stochastic Dominance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(9), pages 2933-2947, September.
    3. W. Wong & R. Chan, 2008. "Prospect and Markowitz stochastic dominance," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 105-129, January.
    4. Guo, Dongmei & Hu, Yi & Wang, Shouyang & Zhao, Lin, 2016. "Comparing risks with reference points: A stochastic dominance approach," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 105-116.
    5. Olapeju Comfort Ogunmokun & Oluwasoye P. Mafimisebi & Demola Obembe, 2023. "Prospect theory and bank credit risk decision-making behaviour: a systematic literature review and future research agenda," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 3(4), pages 1-25, April.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1324-1369 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Ehsan Azmoodeh & Ozan Hur, 2023. "Multi-fractional Stochastic Dominance: Mathematical Foundations," Papers 2307.08651, arXiv.org.
    8. González-Jiménez, Víctor, 2024. "Incentive design for reference-dependent preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 221(C), pages 493-518.
    9. Levy, Haim & Levy, Moshe, 2002. "Experimental test of the prospect theory value function: A stochastic dominance approach," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 1058-1081, November.
    10. Rachel J. Huang & Larry Y. Tzeng & Lin Zhao, 2020. "Fractional Degree Stochastic Dominance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(10), pages 4630-4647, October.
    11. Levy, Haim & Levy, Moshe, 2009. "The safety first expected utility model: Experimental evidence and economic implications," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 33(8), pages 1494-1506, August.
    12. Christian Gollier & Alexander Muermann, 2010. "Optimal Choice and Beliefs with Ex Ante Savoring and Ex Post Disappointment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(8), pages 1272-1284, August.
    13. Sudeep Bhatia & Graham Loomes & Daniel Read, 2021. "Establishing the laws of preferential choice behavior," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(6), pages 1324-1369, November.
    14. Mark Schneider & Robert Day, 2018. "Target-Adjusted Utility Functions and Expected-Utility Paradoxes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 271-287, January.
    15. Katarzyna M. Werner & Horst Zank, 2019. "A revealed reference point for prospect theory," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 67(4), pages 731-773, June.
    16. Smith, Alec, 2019. "Lagged beliefs and reference-dependent utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 331-340.
    17. Sautua, Santiago I., 2017. "Does uncertainty cause inertia in decision making? An experimental study of the role of regret aversion and indecisiveness," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 1-14.
    18. Levy, Haim & Wiener, Zvi, 2013. "Prospect theory and utility theory: Temporary versus permanent attitude toward risk," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 1-23.
    19. Koszegi, Botond & Rabin, Matthew, 2004. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt0w82b6nm, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    20. Raymond H. Chan & Ephraim Clark & Xu Guo & Wing-Keung Wong, 2020. "New development on the third-order stochastic dominance for risk-averse and risk-seeking investors with application in risk management," Risk Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 22(2), pages 108-132, June.
    21. Jong-Hee Hahn & Jinwoo Kim & Sang-Hyun Kim & Jihong Lee, 2018. "Price discrimination with loss averse consumers," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 65(3), pages 681-728, May.

    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:metcap:v:24:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s11009-022-09939-0. 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.