![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hi everyone,
I am going to add a section about risk aversion and bargaining. There has been a lot of research as to how risk aversion can be advantageous/disadvantageous in bargaining scenarios.
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbywellington ( talk • contribs) 00:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
What are the axes on the first set of graphs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaiken ( talk • contribs) 14:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
The mathematics makes very little sense. Either it should explained more rigorously (modulo linear transformation makes no sense at all) so a mathematician could understand it, or more simply with concrete examples so a layman could.
Sorry to be so critical :) .
Am trying to learn subject so can edit it myself. Wish I'd shut up now :D .
Stevebennet 01:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
After a quick look on the internet I think it would be better to leave the maths out (which adds very little to the article) and explain that a single measure of risk aversion is impossible because people have different behaviours in different situations as per the text in the section 'limitations'.
Hey, am I a rude SOB or what? :)
84.66.201.15 01:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, even some of the math proposed here wasn't quite accurate... for economic analysis, the arrow-pratt relative coefficient of risk aversion is, by ordinairy differential equations is solved as 1-eac, but the integration constant 1 doesn't change the utility, so often times is left out of analysis. Unless, of course you want to compare 1 util to another. :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.8.10 ( talk) 19:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The new subsection on portfolio theory pertains more to risk than risk aversion. Will move it there unless there's discussion/dissent... Jeremy Tobacman 08:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Please do NOT make the suggested changes in re: removing math, or removing the reference to portfolio theory. Risk aversion in general, and the two formal models of risk aversion in general, do *not* make sense without the formal specifications that are provided here, and the portfolio theory application is very useful. (Just today I googled this page because I wanted to double-check the difference between CARA and CRRA.) Best, 140.247.153.97 20:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: earliest version of this article was written with "behaviour", Americanizing the spelling of existing articles runs against WP:ENGVAR. Pete.Hurd ( talk) 03:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I recently came across the above term in a 2002 back issue of The Economist, explained as "people tend to overestimate unknown risks." Can mention be made of this in the article? Regards, -- Technopat ( talk) 12:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ambiguity is completely different from risk aversion, so I would say it needs its own entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.159.85.184 ( talk) 19:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I took a quick look at the case approaches 1. As far as I can understand, claim is that , which I cannot understand. Can someone add a link to the original proof or correct my misunderstanding?
To begin with, plotting the function close to shows that it diverges towards infinity. Doing the modification that the text suggest, subtracting one from numerator, changes things, but it also changes the function completely. My plots are here: http://picasaweb.google.com/kalle.raita/Random#5299320537913965986 (Couldn't upload to wiki...). Left is original function, right is the modified form.
When comparing the original function with prerequisites of using L'Hôpital's rule, they are simply not fulfilled. Because the nominator is approaching zero, the numerator should also, but it is not. Even if the modified function has limit, I don't see how it relates to the original function having limit.
I tried also expanding the numerator as a series, but it gave the same result of approaching infinity.
KRaita ( talk) 14:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
--subtract one in the numerator as well. The result follows from l'hospital's rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.84.63 ( talk) 06:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
"A person is given the choice between two scenarios, one with a guaranteed payoff and one without. In the guaranteed scenario, the person receives $50. In the uncertain scenario, a coin is flipped to decide whether the person receives $100 or nothing. The expected payoff for both scenarios is $50, meaning that an individual who was insensitive to risk would not care whether they took the guaranteed payment or the gamble."
For scenario #2, wouldn't the expected payoff be $0 or $100? Unless we're talking averages or something similar. Either way, I don't think the wording is very coherent to the average reader. I would have edited the page, but I'm not sure what was meant.
209.129.94.61 ( talk) 03:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
The utility function u(c) is defined only modulo linear transformation - in other words a constant factor to be added to the value of U(x) for all x, and/or U(x) could be multiplied by a constant factor, without affecting the conclusions.
That should be affine transformation, right? 130.14.254.26 ( talk) 19:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I thought it should be monotonic transformation, since not all affine transformations are order-preserving. 129.174.182.0 ( talk) 21:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Much of the 'public understanding' section to me reads as original research with some albeit minor POV problems. It may not be, but it reads that way, and should be more thoroughly referenced to either correct that misunderstanding or allay suspicions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.66.17 ( talk) 07:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree it seems Original Research. It's also very poorly written, to the point I don't understand in the following section which is the supposed risk and how would a risk-averse attitude attempt to mitigate it:
A vaccine to protect children against three common diseases was developed and recommended for all children. However, a controversy arose around allegations that it caused autism. These were thoroughly disproved,[13] but even years later, some parents chose to spend significant amounts of their own money on alternatives from private doctors.
Is the risk-averse behavior attempting the avoid vaccines because they are "risky", or is it to accept vaccines as mainstream and find alternative treatments "risky" because they are unproven? 201.216.245.25 ( talk) 20:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
It seems most of this article is about the macroeconomics of risk aversion, without actually saying so. Thus the examples make sense economically but not for any particular individual.
Considering the playground example, macroeconomically it may well make sense to spend less on expensive safety equipment to have more playgrounds available. For any particular parent this does not make any sense - there is an absolute risk aversion to both playground accidents and road accidents. The parents will frequently resolve this by moving into a location with a nearby safely equipped playground. Which may actually be the most macroeconomically viable solution anyway, however for the sake of this article it needs to be explained how the absolute risk aversion of the individual is modelled. Richiez ( talk) 09:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
some discussion about the rho, when rho increases, what does it mean? become more risk aversion? and when taken the intertemporal into account, the less likely to exchange with future? Jackzhp ( talk) 15:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I undid this because the reference is bloggish and not on an apparently reliable source site. It's really just not good enough for Wikipedia, even though it is well-written. If you disagree, feel free to bring it to the reliable sources noticeboard. CRETOG8( t/ c) 17:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
u(x), U(W), u(c) ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.144.219 ( talk) 15:14, 4 August 2011
The variable W is never explicitly defined. We can understand it means payment (or maybe wage?) from the second graphic. But it is never defined in the text. At least define it for the first figure. It is very hard to make sense of the figure without knowing W means payment or wage. Maybe this is a trivial point to economists, but this page is certainly consulted by others. I work in machine learning, for instance. It was not immediately obvious to me. -- Ric8cruz ( talk) 15:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Risk aversion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Dr. Drichoutis has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
The section "limitations of expected utility treatment of risk aversion" could include the critique by Cox and Sadiraj (2006) to Rabin: Cox and Sadiraj have shown that implausible large-stakes risk aversion is implied for the expected utility of terminal wealth model but not for the expected utility of income model. James C. Cox, Vjollca Sadiraj, Small- and large-stakes risk aversion: Implications of concavity calibration for decision theory, Games and Economic Behavior, Volume 56, Issue 1, July 2006, Pages 45-60
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Drichoutis has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
ExpertIdeasBot ( talk) 16:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, here's the template already filled with a link to the paper (no paywall) for anyone who wants to improve the article. Cheers −−
Ihaveacatonmydesk (
talk)
17:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Dr. Booth has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
Here I’d add in something about whether preferences over risky choices or outcomes can be altered. In economics there’s a small and very recent literature addressing this. See for instance my paper with Patrick Nolen in The Economic Journal in 2012 “Gender differences in risk behaviour: does nurture matter?” Volume 122, Issue 558, pages F56–F78, February 2012. The abstract follows: “Using a controlled experiment, we investigate if individuals’ risk preferences are affected by (i) the gender composition of the group to which they are randomly assigned, and (ii) the gender mix of the school they attend. Our subjects, from eight publicly funded single-sex and coeducational schools, were asked to choose between a real-stakes lottery and a sure bet. We found that girls in an all-girls group or attending a single-sex school were more likely than their coed counterparts to choose a real-stakes gamble. This suggests that observed gender differences in behaviour under uncertainty found in previous studies might reflect social learning rather than inherent gender traits.”
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Booth has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
ExpertIdeasBot ( talk) 13:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
The article reads:
The sentence above is very confusing, but also redundant because the next sentence explains everything perfectly. I can delete it myself but only if you allow me to do so. Why? Because my recent experience with bold editing was very bad. Vikom talk 00:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
I think that Girth Summit's revert with the comment that this is a possible self-promotion is unjustified. It seems to me that self-promotion should be established on substantial considerations. If self-promotion is only possible then we should wait until it is established. Andres ( talk) 01:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
I unreverted the edits. Andres ( talk) 02:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Praxidicae ( talk) 17:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
In the math section, which already uses complex mathematical equations such as partial derivatives, there is an example of (I think it was u, math template doesn’t paste) how to calculate u”/u’. With such complex math, do we really need this example? I think if someone could understand everything else, this explainatkon kind of gets in the way and could be done without. I know I had to reread just the example a few times because I thought I was missing something when I was not. 02:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC) Pokeswap ( talk) 02:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)