An Empirical study of Risk Aversion using Natural Experiment

10.6292/AFPF.2015.06.07

Dorsaf Ben Aissia

Risk Aversion ； Natural Experiment ； Expected Utility ； Loss Aversion and Narrow Framing ； Lower and Upper Bounds ； Maximum of Likelihood Approach

Advances in Financial Planning and Forecasting

6期（2015 / 02 / 01）

173 - 190

英文

This paper investigates the performance of the expected utility model versus a non expected utility model incorporating both loss aversion and narrow framing when describing the risky choice behavior in a natural experiment. It uses data from the Tunisian version of the TV game show ＂Deal or No Deal.＂ Based on the choices of 90 contestants, we first calculate the mean of the lower and the upper bounds of the contestants' relative risk aversion. We find that the expected utility model fail to describe all the possible scenarios of the risky choice behavior. Notably, we find when the contestant accepts an offer while he rejected better, the expected utility model produces an upper bound of risk below the lower bound. The model of loss aversion and narrow framing has better performance as it introduces a correction in the contestant utility via the loss aversion term-a greater sensitivity to losses than gains-witch solves the problem of inconsistency between upper and lower bounds. We then estimate a stochastic preference model via the maximum of likelihood approach. Results show important contestants' errors which reflect their difficulties to make choices in the game and confirm the superiority of the loss aversion and narrow framing model on the expected utility model in describing contestants' preferences. The model also provides an average estimate of the relative risk aversion of 0.1962 for initial wealth between 0 and 12,000 Tunisian National dinars (TND).

1. De Roos, N., & Sarafidis, Y. (2006). Decision making under risk in deal or no deal. Working paper, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
2. Past, T., van den Assem, M. J., Baltussen, G., & Thaler, R. H. (2006). Deal or no deal? Desision making under risk in a large payoff game show. Working paper, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, Nederland.
3. Anderson, S., Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutstrom, E. E. (2006). Dynamic choice behavior in a natural experiment. Working paper, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL.
4. Von Newman, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1947). Theory of games and economics behavior (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5. Barberis, N., & Huang, M. (2006). The loss aversion/narrow framing approach to equity premium puzzle. Working paper, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
6. Barberis, N.,Huang, M.,Thaler, R. H.(2006).Individual preferences, monetary gambles, and stock market participation: A case for narrow framing.American Economic Review,96,1069-1090.
7. Chou, P.-H.,Chou, R. K.,Ko, K.-C.(2009).Prospect theory and the riskreturn paradox: Some recent evidence.Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting,33,193-208.
8. Duxbury, D.,Hudson, R.,Keasey, K.,Yang, Z.,Yao, S.(2012).How prior realized outcomes affect portfolio decisions.Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting,41,611-629.
9. Epstein, L. G.,Zin, S. E.(1990).First-Order' risk aversion and the equity premium puzzle.Journal of Monetary Economics,26,387-407.
10. Fullencamp, C.,Tenorio, R.,Battalio, R.(2003).Assessing individual risk attitudes using fields data from lottery games.Review of Economics and Statistics,85,218-225.
11. Gertner, R.(1993).Game show and economic behavior: Risk taking on cards sharks.Quarterly Journal of Economics,108,507-521.
12. Harless, D. W.,Camerer, C. F.(1994).The predictive utility of generalized expected utility theories.Econometrica,62,1251-1289.
13. Hey, J. D.,Orme, C.(1994).Investigating generalizing of expected utility theory using experimental data.Econometrica,62,1292-1326.
14. Holt, C. A.,Laury, S. K.(2002).Risk aversion and incentives effects.American Economic Review,92,1644-1655.
15. Hung, M.-W.,Wang, J. Y.(2005).Asset prices under prospect theory and habit formation.Review of Pacific Basin Financial Markets and Policies,8,1-29.
16. Kahneman, D.,Tversky, A.(1979).Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk.Econometrica,47,263-291.
17. Ko, K. J.,Huang, Z.(2012).Time-inconsistent risk preferences in a laboratory experiment.Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting,39,471-484.
18. Loomes, G.,Sugden, R.(1995).Incorporating a stochastic element into decision theories.European Economic Review,39,641-648.
19. Lucas, R. E., Jr.(1978).Asset prices in an exchange economy.Econometrica,46,1429-1445.
20. Metric, A.(1995).A natural experiment in "Jeopardy".American Economic Review,85,240-253.
21. Rabin, M.(2000).Risk aversion and expected-utility theory: A calibration theorem.Econometrica,68,1281-1292.
22. Stramer, C.(2000).Development in non-expected utility theories: The hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk.Journal of Economic Literature,38,332-382.
23. Thaler, R. H.,Johnson, E. J.(1990).Gambling with the house money and trying to break even: The effects of prior outcomes on risky choice.Management Science,36,643-660.
24. Tversky, A.,Kahneman, D.(1992).Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty.Journal of Risk and Uncertainty,5,297-323.
25. Tversky, A.,Kahneman, D.(1981).The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice.Science,211,453-458.