A Behavioral Perspective on Risk Mitigation Investments

  • Ayse Öncüler
Part of the NATO Science Series book series (NAIV, volume 3)


Decisions concerning risk mitigation generally involve tradeoffs between immediate versus delayed outcomes and certain versus risky ones. The decision in adopting a risk mitigation measure illustrates an intertemporal choice problem under uncertainty. This study explores this relationship between delay and uncertainty in risky intertemporal decision-making. In particular, we focus on the following questions: (1) Do risk preferences depend on the time period over which the outcomes are evaluated? (2) Does the discount factor (rate of time preference) depend on the riskiness of the outcomes being evaluated? (3) Is there an interaction between the effect of delay and uncertainty and, if so, in what direction is this interaction? Contrary to normative predictions, we find that delay and risk discounting are not independent from each other. In particular, the delay discount rate increases for uncertain future outcomes and the risk discount rate decreases with an increase in delay. Thus individuals are more impatient for gambles than for certain outcomes and less risk-averse (more risk-neutral) for delayed outcomes than for immediate ones. The findings also suggest that the simultaneous presence of delay and uncertainty leads to a higher discounting of risky future outcomes than predicted by either effect separately.


Discount Rate Time Preference Risk Preference Prospect Theory Delay Discount 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ahlbrecht M. and M. Weber. 1997a. “An Empirical Study on Intertemporal Decision Making Under Risk,” Management Science 43: 813-26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahlbrecht M. and M. Weber. 1997b. “Preference for Gradual Resolution of Uncertainty,” Theory and Decision 43: 167–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ainslie G. 1991. “Derivation of Rational Economic Behaviour from Hyperbolic Discount Curves,” American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings 81: 334–340.Google Scholar
  4. Benzion U., A. Rapaport and J. Yagil. 1989. “Discount Rates Inferred from Decisions”. Management Science 35: 270–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Elster J. and G. Loewenstein. 1992. “Utility from Memory and Anticipation.” In Choice over Time, edited by G.Loewenstein and J.Elster. Russell Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  6. Hofstede, G. 1990. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Kahneman D. and A. Tversky. 1979. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk,” Econometrica 47 (2): 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Keren, G. and P. Roelofsma. 1995. “Immediacy and Certainty in Intertemporal Choice,” Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes 63 (3): 287–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Koopmans, T.C. 1960. “Stationary Ordinal Utility and Impatience,” Econometrica 28: 207–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kreps, D.M. and E.L. Porteus. 1979. “Temporal von Neumann-Morgenstern and Induced Preferences.” Journal of Economic Theory 20: 81–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kunreuther, H., A.Onculer, and P. Slovic. 1998. “Time Insensitivity for Protective Investments,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 16: 279–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Loewenstein G. 1987 “Anticipation and the Valuation of Delayed Consumption,” Economic Journal 97: 667–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Loewenstein G. and D. Prelec. 1991. “Decision-Making Over Time and Under Uncertainty: A Common Approach”. Management Science 37: 770–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Loewenstein G. and D. Prelec. 1992. “Anomalies in Intertemporal Choice: Evidence and an Interpretation.” In Choice over Time, edited by G.Loewenstein and J.Elster. Russell Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  15. Lucas R.E. 1978. “Asset Prices in an Exchange Economy,” Econometrica 46 (6): 1429–1445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mehra R. and E.C. Prescott. 1985. “The Equity Premium: A Puzzle,” Journal of Monetary Economics 15: 145–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Price C. 1993. Time, Discounting and Value. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. Rachlin H., A.W. Logue, J. Gibbon and M. Frankel. 1986 “Cognition and Behavior in Studies of Choice,” Psychological Review 93: 33–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rachlin H. and E. Siegel. 1994. “Temporal Patterning in Probabilistic Choice,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 59: 161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Samuelson P. 1937. “A Note on Measurement of Utility,” Review of Economic Studies 4:2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Shelley M.K. 1994 “Gain/Loss Asymmetry in Risky Intertemporal Choice,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 59: 124–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Thaler R. 1981. “Some Empirical Evidence on Dynamic Inconsistency,” Economics Letters 8: 201–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tversky A. and D. Kahneman. 1992. “Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5 (4): 297–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Von Neumann J. and O. Morgenstern. 1944. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ayse Öncüler
    • 1
  1. 1.Decision SciencesINSEADFrance

Personalised recommendations