Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Measuring the Utility of Losses by Means of the Tradeoff Method

  • Published:
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper investigates the shape of the utility function for losses. From a rational point of view it can be argued that utility should be concave. Empirically, measurements of the utility for losses show mixed results but most evidence supports convex rather than concave utilities. However, these measurements use methods that are either biased by the certainty effect or require complex parametrical estimations. This paper re-examines utility for losses, avoiding the mentioned pitfalls by using the tradeoff method. We find that utility for losses is convex. This is contrary to common assumption in the economics literature. Also, we investigate properties of the tradeoff method showing a new violation of procedure invariance. Our findings demonstrate that diminishing sensitivity is an important phenomenon for utility elicitation.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abdellaoui, Mohammed. (March 1998). “Parameter-Free Elicitation of Utilities and Probability Weighting Functions,” ENS de Cachan, Department of Economics and Management, working paper.

  • Allais, Maurice. (1953). “Le Comportement de l'Homme Rationnel devant le Risque: Critique des Postulats ex Axiomes de l'Ecole Américaine,” Econometrica 21, 503-546.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, Jonathan. (1997). “Confusion of Relative and Absolute Risk in Valuation,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 14, 301-309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beattie, Jean & Graham Loomes. (1997). “The Impact of Incentives upon Risky Choice Experiments,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 14, 155-168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentham, Jeremy. (1789). Principles of Morals and Legislation. At the Clarendom Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernoulli, Daniel. (1738). “Specimen Theoria Novae de Mensura Sortis,” Commentarii Academiae Scientiarum Imperialis Petropolitanae 5, 175-192. Translated to English by Louise Sommer (1954), “Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk,” Econometrica 22, 23-36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, Colin F. (1995). “Individual Decision Making,” in John H. Kagel & Alvin E. Roth (Eds.), Handbook of Experimental Economics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 587-703.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, Colin F. and Teck-Hua Ho. (1994). “Violations of the Betweenness Axiom and Nonlinearity in Probability,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 8, 167-196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cramer, Gabriel. (1728). Letter from Cramer to Nicholas Bernoulli. Translated into English by Louise Sommer in Bernoulli, Daniel (1954), “Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk,” Econometrica 22, 23-36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohn, Richard A., Wilbur G. Lewellen, Ronald C. Lease, & Garv G. Schlarbaum. (1975). “Individual Investor Risk Aversion and Investment Portfolio Composition,” Journal of Finance 30, 605-620.

    Google Scholar 

  • Currim, Imran S. & Rakesh K. Sarin. (1984). “A Comparative Evaluation of Multiattribute Consumer Preference Models,” Management Science 30, 543-561.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, Donald, Patrick Suppes, & Sidney Siegel. (1957). “Decision Making: An Experimental Approach,” Stanford University Press, Stanford; Chapter 2 has been reprinted in Ward Edwards & Amos Tversky (1967, Eds.), Decision Making. Penguin, Harmondsworth, 170-207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delquié, Philippe. (1993). “Inconsistent Trade-Offs between Attributes: New Evidence in Preference Assessment Biases,” Management Science 39, 1382-1395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, James S. & Rakesh K. Sarin. (1982). “Relative Risk Aversion,” Management Science 28, 875-886.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, Ward. (1954). “The Theory of Decision Making,” Psycological Bulletin 51, 380-417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, Ward. (1962). “Subjective Probabilities Inferred from Decisions,” Psychological Review 69, 109-135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erev, Ido & Thomas S. Wallsten. (1993). “The Effect of Explicit Probabilities,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 6, 221-241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farquhar, Peter H. (1984). “Utility Assessment Methods,” Management Science 30, 1283-1300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, Baruch, Paul Slovic, & Sarah Lichtenstein. (1980). “Knowing What You Want: Measuring Labile Values,” in Thomas Wallsten (Ed.), Cognitive Processes in Choice and Decision Behavior. Erlbaum, Hillsdale NJ, Chapter 7, 119-141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, Peter C. & Gary A. Kochenberger. (1979). “Two-Piece von Neumann-Morgenstern Utility Functions,” Decision Sciences 10, 503-518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friend, Irwin & Marshall E. Blume. (1975). “The Demand for Risky Assets,” American Economic Review 65, 900-922.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galanter, Eugene. (1980). “Utility Functions for Nonmonetary Events,” American Journal of Psychology 103, 449-470.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez, Richard & George Wu. (1998). “On the Form of the Probability Weighting Function,” in preparation.

  • Green, Paul E. (1963). “Risk Attitudes and Chemical Investment Decisions,” Chemical Engineering Progress 59, 35-40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hershey, John C., Howard C. Kunreuther, & Paul J.H. Schoemaker. (1982). “Sources of Bias in Assessment Procedures for Utility Functions,” Management Science 28, 936-953.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hershey, John C. & Paul J.H. Schoemaker. (1985). “Probability versus Certainty Equivalence Methods in Utility Measurement: Are They Equivalent?” Management Science 31, 1213-1231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Eric & David Schkade. (1989). “Bias in Utility Assessments: Further Evidence and Explanations,” Management Science 35, 406-424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, Daniel & Amos Tversky. (1979). “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,” Econometrica 47, 263-291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laughhunn, Dan J., John W. Payne, & Roy Crum. (1980). “Managerial Risk Preferences for Below-Target Returns,” Management Science 26, 1238-1249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Libby, Robert & Peter C. Fishburn. (1977). “Behavioral Models of Risk Taking in Business Decisions: A Survey and Evaluation,” Journal of Accounting Research 15, 272-292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, Sarah & Paul Slovic. (1971). “Reversals of Preference between Bids and Choices in Gambling Decisions,” Journal of Experimental Psychology 89, 46-55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. Duncan & Peter C. Fishburn. (1991). “Rank-and Sign-Dependent Linear Utility Models for Finite First-Order Gambles,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 4, 29-59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markowitz, Harry M. (1952). “The Utility of Wealth,” Journal of Political Economy 60, 151-158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, Alfred. (1920). Principles of Economics. 8th edition 1948, 9th edition 1961, MacMillan, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCord, Mark & Richard de Neufville. (1986). “'Lottery Equivalents': Reduction of the Certainty Effect Problem in Utility Assessment,” Management Science 32, 56-60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Officer, Robert R. & Albert N. Halter. (1968). “Utility Analysis in a Practical Setting,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 50, 257-277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, Scott & Bruce Schneider. (1988). “Conjoint Scaling of the Utility of Money Using Paired Comparisons,” Social Science Research 17, 277-286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, John W. (1964). “Risk Aversion in the Small and in the Large,” Econometrica 32, 122-136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quattrone, George A. & Amos Tversky. (1988). “Contrasting Rational and Psychological Analyses of Political Choice,” American Political Science Review 82, 719-736.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quiggin, John. (1982). “A Theory of Anticipated Utility,” Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization 3, 323-343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, Paul A. (1937). “A Note on Measurement of Utility,” Review of Economic Studies 4 (issue 2, February 1937), 155-161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage, Leonard J. (1954). The Foundations of Statistics. Wiley, New York. (Second edition 1972, Dover, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Smidts, A. (1997). “The Relationship between Risk Attitude and Strength of Preference: A Test of Intrinsic Risk Attitude,” Management Science 43, 357-370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, Paul & Sarah Lichtenstein. (1983). “Preference Reversal: A Broader Perspective,” American Economic Review 73, 596-605.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starmer, Chris & Robert Sugden. (1989). “Violations of the Independence Axiom in Common Ratio Problems: An Experimental Test of Some Competing Hypotheses,” Annals of Operations Research 19, 79-101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swalm, Ralph O. (1966). “Utility Theory. Insights into Risk Taking,” Harvard Business Review 47, 123-136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stigler, George L. (1950). “The Development of Utility Theory: I; II,” Journal of Political Economy 58, 307-327; 373-396. Reprinted in Alfred N. Page (1968), Utility Theory: A Book of Readings. Wiley, New York, 55-119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szpiro, George G. (1986). “Measuring Risk Aversion: An Alternative Approach,” Review of Economics and Statistics 68, 156-159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, Richard H. & Eric Johnson. (1990). “Gambling with the House Money and Trying to Break Even: The Effects of Prior Outcomes on Risky Choice,” Management Science 36, 643-660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, Amos & Daniel Kahneman. (1974). “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,” Science 185, 1124-1131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, Amos & Daniel Kahneman. (1992). “Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5, 297-323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, Amos, Paul Slovic & Daniel Kahneman. (1990). “The Causes of Preference Reversal,” American Economic Review 80, 204-217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viscusi, W. Kip. (1989). “Prospective Reference Theory: Toward an Explanation of the Paradoxes,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2, 235-264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Neumann, John & Oskar Morgenstern. (1944). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wakker, Peter P. (1994). “Separating Marginal Utility and Probabilistic Risk Aversion,” Theory and Decision 36, 1-44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wakker, Peter P. & Daniel Deneffe. (1996). “Eliciting von Neumann-Morgenstern Utilities when Probabilities Are Distorted or Unknown,” Management Science 42, 1131-1150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, Charles & Larry Pohlman. (1983). “The Recovery of Risk Preferences from Actual Choices,” Econometrica 51, 843-850.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, George & Richard Gonzalez. (1996). “Curvature of the Probability Weighting Function,” Management Science 42, 1676-1690.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. NICI, University of Nijmegen, P.O. Box 9104, Nijmegen, 6500 HE, The Netherlands

    HEIN FENNEMA

  2. ICS, University of Groningen, Grote Rovenstraat 31, Groningen, 9712 TG, The Netherlands*

    MARCEL VAN ASSEN

Authors
  1. HEIN FENNEMA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. MARCEL VAN ASSEN
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

FENNEMA, H., VAN ASSEN, M. Measuring the Utility of Losses by Means of the Tradeoff Method. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 17, 277–296 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007739018615

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007739018615

Search

Navigation