nach oben

Erschienen in:

2021 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

4. Insurance Demand II: Nontraditional Approaches to Decisions Under Risk

verfasst von : Peter Zweifel, Roland Eisen, David L. Eckles

Erschienen in: Insurance Economics

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Up to this point, extensive use has been made of the expected utility theorem (i.e., the Bernoulli principle) for developing the theory of behavior under risk and of insurance demand in particular, which constitutes the traditional approach. However, mainly in response to the observed behavior that is found at odds with expected utility (EU), a number of nontraditional approaches have been developed.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Insurance Demand I: Decisions Under Risk Without Diversification Possibilities

Nächstes Kapitel Insurance Demand III: Decisions Under Risk with Diversification Possibilities

A vertex point is given by the condition that for an arbitrary number of probabilities, n, and \(k\le n\) restrictions (including the summation restriction), k are satisfied as equalities. Therefore, LPI theory is applicable quite generally.

This criterion calls for maximizing over minimum expected utilities associated with the admissible probability distributions presented by Nature [again, see Zimmermann et al. (1985)].

The model of Volkman-Wise (2015) requires the probability of the true loss to be less than 50%. While this is a seemingly innocuous assumption, it does suggest that the difference in probability estimation may not apply to events with high likelihoods.

Abdellaoui, M. (2000). Parameter-free elicitation of utility and probability weighting functions. Management Science, 46(11), 1497-1512.CrossRef

Allais, M. (1953). Le Comportement de l’homme rational devant le risque: Critique des postulats et axiomes de l’école américaine". Econometrica, 21, 503–546.

Barberis, N.C. (2012). Thirty years of prospect theory in economics: A review and assessment. NBER Working Paper 18621.

Becker, S.W., & Brownson, F.O. (1964). What price ambiguity? Or the role of ambiguity in decision-making. Journal of Political Economy 72, 62-73.CrossRef

Bell, D.E. (1982). Regret in decision making under uncertainty. Operations Research, 30(5), 961-981.CrossRef

Bernasconi, M., & Loomes, G. (1992). Failures of the reduction principle in an Ellsberg-type problem. Theory and Decision 32, 77-100.CrossRef

Brigo, D., Pallavicini, A. & Torresetti, R. (2010). Credit Models and the Crisis: A Journey into CDOs, Copulas, Correlations and Dynamic Models. New York: Wiley.

Calford, E.M. (2017). Uncertainty aversion in game theory: Experimental evidence. Purdue University Economics Department Working Paper No. 1291.

Camerer, C., & Karjalainen, R. (1994). Ambiguity-aversion and non-additive beliefs in non-cooperative games: Experimental evidence. In B. Munier and M.J. Machina (eds.), Models and Experiments in Risk and Rationality, Springer Netherlands, 325-358.

Camerer, C., & Weber, M. (1992). Recent developments in modeling preferences: Uncertainty and ambiguity. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5, 325-370.CrossRef

Carnap, R. (1950). Logical Foundations of Probability. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Chipman, J.S. (1960). Stochastic choice and subjective probability." In D. Willner (ed.), Decisions, Values and Groups. Volume I. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press, 70-95.

Cohen, M., & Jaffray, J-Y., & Said, T. (1985). Individual behavior uncertainty: an experimental study. Theory and Decision 18, 203-228.CrossRef

Conte, A., & Hey, J.D. (2013). Assessing multiple prior models of behavior under ambiguity. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 46(2), 113-137.CrossRef

Curley, S.P., & Yates, J.F. (1985). The center and range of the probability affecting ambiguity preferences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 36, 272-287.CrossRef

Curley, S.P., & Yates, J.F. (1989). An empirical evaluation of descriptive models of ambiguity reactions in choice situations. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 33, 397-427.CrossRef

Curley, S.P., & Yates, J.F., & Abrams, R.A. (1986). Psychological sources of ambiguity avoidance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 38, 230-256.CrossRef

Dumm, R.E., Eckles, D.L., Nyce, C., & Volkman-Wise, J. (2017). Demand for windstorm insurance coverage and the representative heuristic. Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, 42, 117-139.CrossRef

Dumm, R.E., Eckles, D.L., Nyce, C., & Volkman-Wise, J. (2020). The representative heuristic and catastrophe-related risk behaviors. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 60, 2, 157-185.CrossRef

Eichberger, J., Kelsey, D., & Schipper, B.C. (2008). Granny versus game theorist: Ambiguity in experimental games. Theory and Decision, 64, 333-362.CrossRef

Einhorn, H.J., & Hogarth. R.M. (1985). Ambiguity and uncertainty in probabilistic inference. Psychology Review 92, 433-461.CrossRef

Einhorn, H.J., & Hogarth, R.M. (1986). Decision making under ambiguity. Journal of Business 59, S225-S250.CrossRef

Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75, 643–669.CrossRef

Federal Drug Administration (2006). Guidance for Industry. Q9 Quality Risk Management. Rockville MD.

Fellner, W. (1961). Distortion of subjective probabilities as a reaction to uncertainty. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75(4), 670-689.CrossRef

Gigliotti, G., & Sopher, B. (1990). The testing principle: a resolution of the Ellsberg paradox," working paper, nDepartment of Economics, Rutgers University.

Gilboa, I., & Schmeidler, D. (1989). Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 18, 141-153.CrossRef

Goldsmith, R.W., & Sahlin, N-E. (1983). The role of second-order probabilities in decision making. In. P. Humphreys, O. Svenson, and A. Vari (eds.), Analysing and Aiding Decision Processes. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 455-467.

Gonzalez, R., & Wu, G. (1999). On the shape of the probability weighting function. Cognitive Psychology, 38(1), 129-166.CrossRef

Heath, C., & Tversky, A. (1991). Preference and belief: ambiguity and competence in choice under uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 4, 5-28.CrossRef

Hey, J.D., & Orme, C. (1994). Investigating generalizations of expected utility theory using experimental data. Econometrica, 62(6), 1291-1326.CrossRef

Hogarth, R.M., & Einhorn, H.J. (1990). Venture theory: a model of decision weights. Management Science 36, 780-803.CrossRef

Intriligator, M.D. (1971). Mathematical Optimization and Economic Theory, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Kahn, B.E., & Sarin, R.K. (1988). Modeling ambiguity in decisions under uncertainty. Journal of Consumer Research 15, 265-272.CrossRef

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-292.CrossRef

Kelsey, D. & le Roux, S. (2015). An experimental study on the effect of ambiguity in a coordination game. Theory and Decision, 79, 667-688.CrossRef

Keppe, H.J., & Weber. M. (1991). Judged knowledge and ambiguity aversion, working paper no. 277, Christian-Albrechts-Universität, Kiel, Germany.

Kofler, E., & Menges, G. (1976). Entscheidungen bei unvollständiger Information (Decisions Based on Incomplete Information). Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems 136. Berlin: Springer.

Kofler, E., & Zweifel, P. (1988). Exploiting linear partial information for optimal use of forecasts: with an application to U.S. economic policy. International Journal of Forecasting, 4(1), 15–32.CrossRef

Kunreuther, H., & Pauly, M.V. & McMorrow, S. (2013). Insurance and Behavioral Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Larson Jr., J.R. (1980). Exploring the external validity of a subjectively weighted utility model of decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 26, 293-304.CrossRef

Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1982). Regret theory: an alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty. The Economic Journal, 92(368), 805-824.CrossRef

Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1983). Regret theory and measurable utility. Economics Letters, 12(1), 19-21.CrossRef

MacCrimmon, K.R. (1968). Descriptive and normative implications of the decision-theory postulates. In K. Borch, & J. Mossin (Eds.), Risk and Uncertainty (pp. 3–23). London: MacMillan.

MacCrimmon, K.R., & Larsson, S. (1979). Utility theory: axioms versus ‘paradoxes.’ In M. Allais and O. Hagen (eds.), Expected Utility and the Allais Paradox. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel, pp. 333-409.

Markowitz, H.M. (1952). Portfolio selection. Journal of Finance, 7, 77–91.

Meyer, R. & Kunreuther, H.C. (2017). The ostrich paradox: why we underprepare for disasters. Wharton Digital Press.

Mork, K.A., & Hall, R.E. (1979). Energy prices, inflation, and recession, 1974-75. NBER Working Paper w0369. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Niehans, J. (1948). Zur Preisbildung bei ungewissen Erwartungen (On the formation of prices under uncertain expectations). Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Volkswirtschaft und Statistik (Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics), 84, 433–456.

Quiggin, J. (1982). A theory of anticipated utility. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3, 323–343.CrossRef

Savage, L.J. (1951). The theory of statistical decision. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 45, 57-67.

Savage, L.J. (1954). The Foundations of Statistics. New York.

Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1974). Who accepts Savage’s axiom? Behavioral Science 19, 368-373.CrossRef

Taylor, K.A. (1991). Testing credit and blame attributions as explanations for choices under ambiguity, working paper, Department of Decision Sciences, University of Pennsylvania.

Taylor, P.R. (2012). The mismeasure of risk. In S. Boeser, R. Hillebrand, P. Sandin, M. Peterson (eds.), Handbook of Risk Theory. Vol. 1. New York: Springer, 441-475.

Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1971). Belief in the law of small numbers. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 2, 105-110.CrossRef

Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207-232.CrossRef

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

Volkman-Wise, J. (2015). Representativeness and managing catastrophe risk risk, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 51, 267-290.CrossRef

Yates, J.F., & Zukowski, L.G. (1976). Characterization of ambiguity in decision making. Behavioral Science 21, 19-25.CrossRef

Zimmermann, A., Zweifel, P., & Kofler, E. (1985). Application of the linear partial information model to forecasting the Swiss timber market. Journal of Forecasting, 4, 387-338.CrossRef

Titel: Insurance Demand II: Nontraditional Approaches to Decisions Under Risk
verfasst von: Peter Zweifel
Roland Eisen
David L. Eckles
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: Insurance Economics
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-80389-6

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-80390-2

Copyright-Jahr: 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80390-2_4