Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Risk aversion elicitation: reconciling tractability and bias minimization

  • Published:
Theory and Decision Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Risk attitude is known to be a key determinant of various economic and financial choices. Behavioral studies that aim to evaluate the role of risk attitudes in contexts of this type, therefore, require tools for measuring individual risk tolerance. Recent developments in decision theory provide such tools. However, the methods available can be time consuming. As a result, some practitioners might have an incentive to prefer “fast and frugal” methods to clean but more costly methods. In this article, we focus on a tractable procedure initially proposed by Holt and Laury (2002) to elicit risk attitude. We generalize this method to measure utility and risk aversion as follows. First, we allow measurement of probabilistic risk attitude through violations of expected utility due to probability weighting. Second, we use the outcome scale rather than the probability scale in the menu of choices. Third, we compare sure payoffs with lotteries instead of comparing non-degenerate lotteries. A within-subject experimental study illustrates the gains in tractability and bias minimization that can result from such an extension.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abdellaoui M. (2000) Parameter-free elicitation of utility and probability weighting functions. Management Science 46: 1497–1512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abdellaoui M., Barrios C., Wakker P. (2007a) Reconciling introspective utility with revealed preference: Experimental arguments based on prospect theory. Journal of Econometrics 138: 356–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abdellaoui M., Bleichrodt H., Paraschiv C. (2007b) Loss aversion under prospect theory: A parameter-free measurement. Management Science 53: 1659–1674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abdellaoui M., Bleichrodt H., L’Haridon O. (2008) A tractable method to measure utility and loss aversion under prospect theory. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 36: 245–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abdellaoui, M., L’Haridon, O., & Paraschiv, C. (2009). Experienced versus described uncertainty: Do we need two prospect theory specifications? Working Paper, HEC School of Management.

  • Andersen S., Harrison G., Lau M., Rutström E. (2006) Elicitation using multiple price lists. Experimental Economics 9: 383–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen S., Harrison G., Lau M., Rutström E. (2008) Eliciting risk and time preferences. Econometrica 76: 583–618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baillon, A., Drissen, B., & Wakker, P. (2009). Relative concave utility for risk and ambiguity. Working Paper, Erasmus University Rotterdam

  • Birnbaum M. (2008) New paradoxes of risky decision making. Psychological Review 115: 463–501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bleichrodt H., Pinto J. (2000) A parameter-free elicitation of the probability weighting function in medical decision analysis. Management Science 46: 1485–1496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bleichrodt H., Abellan-Perpinan J., Pinto J., Mendez-Martinez I. (2007) Resolving inconsistencies in utility measurment under risk: Tests of generalizations of expected utility. Management Science 53: 469–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosch-Domenech, A., & Silvestre, J. (2006). Risk aversion and embedding bias. Economics Working Papers from Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.

  • Camerer C., Ho T. (1994) Violations of betweenness axiom and nonlinearity in probability. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 8: 167–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carbone E., Hey J. (2000) Which error story is best?. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 20: 161–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen M., Jaffray J.-Y., Saïd T. (1987) Experimental comparison of individual behavior under risk and under uncertainty for gains and for losses. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 39: 1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diecidue E., Wakker P. (2001) On the intuition of rank-dependent utility. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 23: 281–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erev I., Glozman I., Hertwig R. (2008) What impacts the impact of rare events. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 36: 153–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goeree J., Holt C., Palfrey T. (2003) Risk averse behavior in generalized matching pennies games. Games and Economic Behavior 45: 97–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein W., Einhorn H. (1987) Expression theory and the preference reversal phenomena. Psychological Review 94: 236–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez R., Wu G. (1999) On the shape of the probability weighting function. Cognitive Psychology 38: 129–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison G., List J., Towe C. (2007) Naturally occurring preferences and exogenous laboratory experiments: A case study of risk aversion. Econometrica 75: 433–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, G., Ruström, E. (2008) Risk aversion in experiments. In N. Cox, & G. Harrison (Eds.), Risk aversion in the laboratory. No. 12 in research in experimental economic. Bingley: Emerald.

  • Hershey J., Schoemaker P. (1985) Probability versus certainty equivalence methods in utility measurement: Are they equivalent?. Management Science 31: 1213–1231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hey J., Orme C. (1994) Investigating generalizations of expected utility theory using experimental data. Econometrica 62: 1391–1426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holt C., Laury S. (2002) Risk aversion and incentive effects. American Economic Review 92: 1644–1655

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D., Tversky A. (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47: 263–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lusk J., Coble K. (2005) Risk perceptions, risk preference, and acceptance of risky food. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87: 393–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCord M., de Neufville R. (1986) Lottery equivalents: Reduction of the certainty effect problem in utility assessment. Management Science 32: 56–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgenstern O., von Neumann J. (1944) Theory of games and economic behavior (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Noussair C., Wu P. (2006) Risk tolerance in the present and the future: An experimental study. Managerial and Decision Economics 27: 401–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prelec D. (1998) The probability weighting function. Econometrica 66: 497–528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quiggin J. (1982) A theory of anticipated utility. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization 3: 323–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quiggin J. (1993) Generalized expected utility theory—The rank-dependent model. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert R., Brown M., Gysler M., Brachinger H. (1999) Financial decision-making: Are women really more risk-averse?. American Economic Review 89: 381–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starmer C. (2000) Developments in non-expected utility theory: The hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk. Journal of Economic Literature 28: 332–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stott H. (2006) Cumulative prospect theory’s functional menagerie. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 32: 101–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A., Kahneman D. (1992) Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5: 297–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wakker, P., & Deneffe, D. (1996). Eliciting von neumann-morgenstern utilities when probabilities are distorted or unknown. Management Science, 42.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Greg-HEC, HEC-Paris, 1 rue de la Libration, 78501, Jouy-en-Josas, France

    Mohammed Abdellaoui & Olivier L’Haridon

  2. CNRS, Paris, France

    Mohammed Abdellaoui

  3. Al Akhawayn University, Ifrane, Morocco

    Ahmed Driouchi

  4. University Paris Sorbonne, Paris, France

    Olivier L’Haridon

Authors
  1. Mohammed Abdellaoui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ahmed Driouchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Olivier L’Haridon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olivier L’Haridon.

Additional information

We thank Aurélien Baillon and Enrico Dieccidue for helpful comments. Mohammed Abedellaoui and Olivier L’Haridon’s research was supported by the French National Research Agency (ANR Grant Risk Attitude ANR05-BLAN-0345-01).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Abdellaoui, M., Driouchi, A. & L’Haridon, O. Risk aversion elicitation: reconciling tractability and bias minimization. Theory Decis 71, 63–80 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-009-9192-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-009-9192-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation