Theory and Decision

, Volume 54, Issue 1, pp 57–71 | Cite as

Commonalities in Time and Ambiguity Aversion for Long-Term Risks*

  • Harrell W. Chesson
  • W. Kip Viscusi

Abstract

Optimal protective responses to long-term risks depend on rational perceptions of ambiguous risks and uncertain time horizons. Our study examined the joint influence of uncertain delay and risk in an original sample of business owners and managers. We found that many subjects disliked uncertainty in the timing of an outcome, a reaction we term ``lottery timing risk aversion.'' Such aversion to uncertain timing was positively related to aversion to ambiguous probabilities for lotteries involving storm damage risks. This association suggests that uncertainty may be processed similarly in both the risk and time dimensions.

Ambiguity Discounting Ellsberg Paradox Risk Uncertainty 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ahlbrecht, M. and Martin, W. (1997), An empirical study on intertemporal decision making under risk, Management Science 43, 813–826.Google Scholar
  2. Arai, D. 1997. Temporal resolution of uncertainty in risky choices, Acta Psychologica 96, 15–26.Google Scholar
  3. Arrow, K.J. (1971), Essays in the Theory of Risk-Bearing.Google Scholar
  4. Markham, Chicago, IL. Benzion, U., Rapoport, A. and Yagil, J. (1989), Discount rates inferred from decisions: an experimental study, Management Science 35, 270–284.Google Scholar
  5. Camerer, C. and Weber, M. (1992), Recent developments in modeling preferences: uncertainty and ambiguity, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5, 323–370.Google Scholar
  6. Chesson H. and Viscusi, W.K. (2000), The heterogeneity of time-risk tradeoffs, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 13, 251–258.Google Scholar
  7. Dicker, R.C. (1996), Analyzing and interpreting data. In: M.B. Gregg (Ed.), Field Epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Drèze, J. and Modigliani, F. (1972), Consumption decisions under uncertainty. Journal of Economic Theory, 5, 308–335.Google Scholar
  9. Einhorn, H.J. and Hogarth, R.M. 1986. Decision-making under ambiguity., Journal of Business 59, S225–S250.Google Scholar
  10. Ellsberg, D. (1961), Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms, Quarterly Journal of Economics 75, 643–669.Google Scholar
  11. Gollier, C. (2001), Should we beware of the precautionary principle? Economic Policy 16, 301–328.Google Scholar
  12. Green L, Myerson J, and Ostaszewski P. (1999), Amount of reward has opposite effects on the discounting of delayed and probabilistic outcomes, Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition 25, 418–427.Google Scholar
  13. Kahn, B.E. and Sarin, R.K. (1988), Modeling ambiguity in decisions under uncertainty, Journal of Consumer Research. 15, 265–272.Google Scholar
  14. Kunreuther, H., Onculer, A. and Slovic, P. (1998). Time insensitivity for protective investments, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 16, 279–299.Google Scholar
  15. Leigh, J.P. (1986), Accounting for tastes: correlates of risk and time preferences, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 9, 17–31.Google Scholar
  16. Loewenstein, G. and Elster, J. (eds) (1992), Choice Over Time. Russell Sage Foundation, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Loewenstein, G. and Prelec, D. (1992), Anomalies in intertemporal choice: evidence and an interpretation, Quarterly Journal of Economics, CVII, 573–597.Google Scholar
  18. Loewenstein, G. and Thaler, R.H. (1989), Anomalies – intertemporal choice, Journal of Economic Perspectives 3, 181–193.Google Scholar
  19. Lovallo, D. and Kahneman, D. (2000), Living with uncertainty: Attractiveness and resolution timing. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 13, 179–190.Google Scholar
  20. Mazur, J.E. (1997). Choice, delay, probability, and conditioned reinforcement, Animal Learning & Behavior 25, 131–147.Google Scholar
  21. Mossin, J. (1969), A note on uncertainty and preferences in a temporal context, American Economic Review 59, 172–174.Google Scholar
  22. Rachlin, H., Logue, A.W., Gibbon, J. and Frankel, M. (1986), Cognition and behavior in studies of choice, Psychological Review, 93, 33–45.Google Scholar
  23. Rachlin, H., Raineri, A. and Cross, D. (1991), Subjective probability and delay. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 55, 233–244.Google Scholar
  24. Roelofsma, P. (1996), Modelling intertemporal choices: an anomaly approach, Acta Psychologica 93, 5–22.Google Scholar
  25. Samuelson, P. (1937). A note on measurement of utility, Review of Economic Studies 4, 155–161.Google Scholar
  26. Sarin, R.K. and Weber, M. (1993), Effects of ambiguity in market experiments. Management Science, 39(5), 602–615.Google Scholar
  27. Sarin, R.K. and Winkler, R.L. (1992), Ambiguity and decision modeling – a preference-based approach, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5(4), 389–407.Google Scholar
  28. Spence, M. and Zeckhauser, R. (1972), The effect of the timing of consumption decisions and the resolutions of lotteries on the choice of lotteries, Econometrica 40(2), 401–403.Google Scholar
  29. Viscusi, W.K. and Chesson, H. (1999), Hopes and fears: the conflicting effects of risk ambiguity, Theory and Decision 47, 153–178.Google Scholar
  30. Viscusi, W.K. and Magat, W.A. (1992), Bayesian decisions with ambiguous belief aversion, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5, 371–387.Google Scholar
  31. Viscusi, W.K., Magat, W.A. and Huber, J. (1991), Pricing environmental health risks: survey assessments of risk-risk and risk-dollar trade-offs for chronic bronchitis, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 21, 35–51.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harrell W. Chesson
    • 1
  • W. Kip Viscusi
    • 2
  1. 1.Centers for Disease Control and PreventionAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Harvard Law SchoolCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations