Non-Expected Utility: What do the Anomalies Mean for Risk in Agriculture?
What is the nature of behavior violating EU as commonly applied?
What do these anomalies tell us about modeling behavior under risk and what testable implications can be drawn from models incorporating them?
Can we still use EU for some risky choices in light of these anomalies; i.e., how robust are the anomalies to (1) the design of the risky questions, (2) real payoffs, and (3) experimental vs. non-experimental risky questions?
KeywordsExpect Utility Theory Risky Choice Risky Decision Final Wealth Probability Weighting Function
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Arrow, K. 1970. Essays in the Theory of Risk Bearing. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
- Atwood, J., and D.E. Buschena. 2000. “Evaluating the Magnitudes of Financial Transactions Costs on Risk Behavior.” Working Paper, Department of Agricultural Economics and Economics, Montana State University.Google Scholar
- Atwood, J.A., M.J. Watts, and A. Baquet. 1996. “An Examination of the Effects of Price Supports and Federal Crop Insurance Upon the Economic Growth, Capital Structure, and Financial Survival of Wheat Growers in the Northern High Plains.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78: 212–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Benjamin, D.K., and W.R. Dougan. 1997. “Individual’s Estimates of the Risk of Death: Part I - A Reassessment of the Previous Evidence.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 15: 115134.Google Scholar
- Buschena, D.E., and D. Zilberman. 1999a. Testing the Effects of Similarity and Real Payoffs on Choice. In M. Machina and B. Munier, eds., Beliefs, Interactions, and Preferences in Decision Making. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
- Buschena, D.E., and D. Zilberman. 2001. “Predictive Value of Incentives, Decision Difficulty, and Expected Utility Theory for Risky Choices.” Working Paper, Department of Agricultural Economics and Economics. Montana State University.Google Scholar
- Cherry, T.L., T.D. Crocker, and J.F. Shogren. 1999. “Rationality Spillovers.” Working Paper, Department of Economics and Finance, University of Central Florida.Google Scholar
- Collins, A., W.N. Musser, and R. Mason. 1991. Prospect Theory and Risk Preferences ofGoogle Scholar
- Oregon Seed Producers. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73: 429–435.Google Scholar
- Fishbum, P.C. 1988. Nonlinear Preference and Utility Theory. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
- Harless, D.W., and S.P. Peterson. 1998. “Investor Behavior and the Persistence of Poorly-Performing Mutual Funds.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 37: 257276.Google Scholar
- Hershey, J.C., and P. J.H. Schoemaker. “Risk Taking and Problem Context in the Domain of Losses: An Expected Utility Analysis.” Journal of Risk and Insurance 47: 111–132.Google Scholar
- Kachelmeter, S.J., and M. Shehata. 1992. “Examining Risk Preferences Under High Monetary Incentives: Experimental Evidence From the Peoples’ Republic of China.” American Economic Review 82: 1 120–1 141.Google Scholar
- Machina, Mark J. 1990. “Choice Under Uncertainty: Problems Solved and Unsolved.” In R.B. Hammon and R. Coppock, eds., Valuing Health Risk, Costs and Benefits for Environmental Decisionmaking. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- Meyer, J. 2001. “Expected Utility as a Paradigm for Decision Making in Agriculture.” In R.E. Just and R.D. Pope, eds., A Comprehensive Assessment of the Role of Risk in U.S. Agriculture. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
- Newbery, D.M.G., and J.E. Stiglitz. 1981. The Theory of Commodity Price Stabilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Pious, S. 1993. The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making. Philadelphia: Temple University Press: Philadelphia.Google Scholar
- Pratt, J.W. 1964. “Risk Aversion in the Small and in the Large.” Econometrica 32: 122–136. Preston, M.G., and P. Baratta. 1948. “An Experimental Study of the Auction Value of an Uncertain Outcome.” American Journal of Psychology 61: 183–193.Google Scholar
- Roberts, M. 1994. “The Sensitivity of Expected Utility Violations to the Experimental Design: How Context Affects Risky Choice.” Master’s thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics and Economics, Montana State University.Google Scholar
- Robison, L.J., and P.J. Barry. 1987. The Competitive Firm’s Response to Risk. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
- Sandmo, A. 1971. “On the Theory of the Competitive Firm Under Price Uncertainty.” American Economic Review 61: 65–73.Google Scholar
- Smith, V.K. 1992. “Environmental Risk Perception and Valuation: Conventional Versus Prospective Reference Theory.” In D.W. Bromley and K. Segerson, eds., The Social Response to Environmental Risk: Policy Formulation in an Age of Uncertainty. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
- Stigler, J.E., and G.S. Becker. 1977. “De Gustibus Non est Disputandum.” American Economic Review 67: 76–90.Google Scholar
- Telser, L.G. 1955–56. “Safety First and Hedging.” Review of Economic Studies 23: l-16.Google Scholar
- von Neumann, J., and O. Morgenstern. 1953. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior ( 3rd ed. ). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar