IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/c96yd.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Ergodicity transformations predict human decision-making under risk

Author

Listed:
  • Skjold, Benjamin
  • Steinkamp, Simon Richard
  • Connaughton, Colm
  • Hulme, Oliver J
  • Peters, Ole

Abstract

Decision theories commonly assume that risk preferences can be expressed as utility functions, which vary from person to person but are stable over time. A recent model from ergodicity economics reveals that if people want their wealth to grow at the fastest rate they need to adjust their utility functions depending on the dynamics of their wealth. Here, we ask whether humans make such adjustments by exposing them to different wealth dynamics. We carried out an experiment in which participants made consequential risky decisions under two different conditions, additive and multiplicative wealth dynamics. We estimated risk aversion parameters separately in the two conditions for each participant, fitting isoelastic functions via hierarchical Bayesian models. In our pre-registered analyses, we found strong evidence for a change in utility function, namely an increase in the risk aversion parameter under the multiplicative condition, as predicted by ergodicity economics. Apart from evidence for a large effect of wealth dynamics, we also recover trait-like differences between participants that persist across the two conditions. Our study introduces a new experimental design and contains two independent replications between pilot data and a larger cohort. Together, these results provide evidence that human risk-taking behaviour is sensitive to the dynamical context in which decisions are made and that long-term wealth maximization is an important explanatory principle.

Suggested Citation

  • Skjold, Benjamin & Steinkamp, Simon Richard & Connaughton, Colm & Hulme, Oliver J & Peters, Ole, 2024. "Ergodicity transformations predict human decision-making under risk," OSF Preprints c96yd, Center for Open Science.
  • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:c96yd
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/c96yd
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/665006ca77ff4c1aefe045f6/
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/c96yd?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Menezes, C F & Hanson, D L, 1970. "On the Theory of Risk Aversion," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 11(3), pages 481-487, October.
    2. Harry Markowitz, 1952. "The Utility of Wealth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 60(2), pages 151-151.
    3. Glenn W. Harrison & E. Elisabet Rutström, 2008. "Risk Aversion in the Laboratory," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Risk Aversion in Experiments, pages 41-196, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    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. Skjold, Benjamin & Steinkamp, Simon Richard & Hulme, Oliver J & Peters, Ole & Connaughton, Colm, 2023. "Are risk preferences optimal?," OSF Preprints ew2sx, Center for Open Science.
    2. Emin Karagözoğlu & Ümit Barış Urhan, 2017. "The Effect of Stake Size in Experimental Bargaining and Distribution Games: A Survey," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 285-325, March.
    3. Thomas Eichner & Andreas Wagener, 2002. "Increases in Risk and the Welfare State," CESifo Working Paper Series 685, CESifo.
    4. Goeree, Jacob K. & Holt, Charles A. & Palfrey, Thomas R., 2002. "Quantal Response Equilibrium and Overbidding in Private-Value Auctions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 104(1), pages 247-272, May.
    5. Amos Schurr & Yaakov Kareev & Judith Avrahami & Ilana Ritov, 2012. "Taking the Broad Perspective: Risky Choices in Repeated Proficiency Tasks," Discussion Paper Series dp621, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    6. Chateauneuf, Alain & Eichberger, Jurgen & Grant, Simon, 2007. "Choice under uncertainty with the best and worst in mind: Neo-additive capacities," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 137(1), pages 538-567, November.
    7. 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.
    8. Chorvat, Terrence, 2006. "Taxing utility," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 1-16, February.
    9. Grund, Christian & Sliwka, Dirk, 2001. "The Impact of Wage Increases on Job Satisfaction - Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Implications," IZA Discussion Papers 387, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    10. Martin Kukuk & Stefan Winter, 2008. "An Alternative Explanation of the Favorite-Longshot Bias," Journal of Gambling Business and Economics, University of Buckingham Press, vol. 2(2), pages 79-96, September.
    11. Karagözoğlu, Emin & Keskin, Kerim, 2024. "Consideration sets and reference points in a dynamic bargaining game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 381-403.
    12. Egozcue, Martín & García, Luis Fuentes & Wong, Wing-Keung & Zitikis, Ricardas, 2011. "Do investors like to diversify? A study of Markowitz preferences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 215(1), pages 188-193, November.
    13. Z. Bar‐Shira & R.E. Just & D. Zilberman, 1997. "Estimation of farmers' risk attitude: an econometric approach," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 17(2-3), pages 211-222, December.
    14. Frank Schmielewski & Thomas Wein, 2015. "Are private banks the better banks? An insight into the principal–agent structure and risk-taking behavior of German banks," Journal of Economics and Finance, Springer;Academy of Economics and Finance, vol. 39(3), pages 518-540, July.
    15. Thomas Aronsson & Sugata Ghosh & Ronald Wendner, 2023. "Positional preferences and efficiency in a dynamic economy," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 61(2), pages 311-337, August.
    16. Bosch-Domenech, Antoni & Silvestre, Joaquim, 1999. "Does risk aversion or attraction depend on income? An experiment," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 265-273, December.
    17. Lefebvre, Mathieu & Vieider, Ferdinand M. & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2010. "Incentive effects on risk attitude in small probability prospects," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 115-120, November.
    18. Holden, Stein T. & Tilahun, Mesfin, 2019. "How related are risk preferences and time preferences?," CLTS Working Papers 4/19, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies, revised 16 Oct 2019.
    19. Karine Darjinoff & Francois Pannequin, 2000. "Demande d'assurance : Faut-il abandonner le critère de l'espérance d'utilité ?," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques bla00004, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
    20. Fidanoski, Filip & Johnson, Timothy, 2023. "A z-Tree implementation of the Dynamic Experiments for Estimating Preferences [DEEP] method," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 38(C).

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:osf:osfxxx:c96yd. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    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.