IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/quante/v7y2016i2p367-409.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Inference under stability of risk preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Levon Barseghyan
  • Francesca Molinari
  • Joshua C. Teitelbaum

Abstract

We leverage the assumption that preferences are stable across contexts to partially identify and conduct inference on the parameters of a structural model of risky choice. Working with data on households' deductible choices across three lines of insurance coverage and a model that nests expected utility theory plus a range of non‐expected utility models, we perform a revealed preference analysis that yields household‐specific bounds on the model parameters. We then impose stability and other structural assumptions to tighten the bounds, and we explore what we can learn about households' risk preferences from the intervals defined by the bounds. We further utilize the intervals to (i) classify households into preference types and (ii) recover the single parameterization of the model that best fits the data. Our approach does not entail making distributional assumptions about unobserved heterogeneity in preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Levon Barseghyan & Francesca Molinari & Joshua C. Teitelbaum, 2016. "Inference under stability of risk preferences," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 7(2), pages 367-409, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:quante:v:7:y:2016:i:2:p:367-409
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tinggui Chen & Qianqian Li & Peihua Fu & Jianjun Yang & Chonghuan Xu & Guodong Cong & Gongfa Li, 2020. "Public Opinion Polarization by Individual Revenue from the Social Preference Theory," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-29, February.
    2. Keith Marzilli Ericson & Philipp Kircher & Johannes Spinnewijn & Amanda Starc, 2021. "Inferring Risk Perceptions and Preferences Using Choice from Insurance Menus: Theory and Evidence," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 131(634), pages 713-744.
    3. Alex Gershkov & Benny Moldovanu & Philipp Strack & Mengxi Zhang, 2023. "Optimal Insurance: Dual Utility, Random Losses and Adverse Selection," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 242, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    4. Bernard Salanié, 2017. "Equilibrium in Insurance Markets: An Empiricist’s View," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance Theory, Springer;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 42(1), pages 1-14, March.
    5. Fezzi, Carlo & Menapace, Luisa & Raffaelli, Roberta, 2021. "Estimating risk preferences integrating insurance choices with subjective beliefs," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    6. Levon Barseghyan & Francesca Molinari & Matthew Thirkettle, 2021. "Discrete Choice under Risk with Limited Consideration," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(6), pages 1972-2006, June.
    7. Byambadalai, Undral & Ma, Ching-to Albert & Wiesen, Daniel, 2023. "Changing preferences: An experiment and estimation of market-incentive effects on altruism," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    8. Undral Byambadalai & Ching-to Albert Ma & Daniel Wiesen, 2019. "Changing Preferences: An Experiment and Estimation of Market-Incentive E§ects on Altruism," Boston University - Department of Economics - Working Papers Series WP2019-11, Boston University - Department of Economics.
    9. Charles F. Manski, 2018. "More on random utility models with bounded ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(2), pages 205-213, March.

    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:wly:quante:v:7:y:2016:i:2:p:367-409. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/essssea.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.