How to Calibrate a Questionnaire for Risk Measurement?

  • Jana ŠpirkováEmail author
  • Pavol Král’
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 643)


Utility functions content parameters related to risk aversion coefficients which represent natural extensions of utility function properties. They measure how much utility we gain (or lose) as we add (or subtract) from our wealth. We set up these parameters for a person based on her/his answers to a questionnaire constructed to identify individual risk behavior. Calibration of such a questionnaire, and subsequently of utility functions, is based on an expected utility maximization of different alternatives of investment strategies. In the paper, we present questionnaire calibration methodology which we illustrate using absolute and relative risk aversion coefficients of two selected utility functions which have common, as well as different properties.


Questionnaire Utility function Risk measurement Calibration Premium 



Jana Špirková has been supported by the Project VEGA no. 1/0093/17 Identification of risk factors and their impact on products of the insurance and savings schemes.


  1. 1.
    Bouchon-Meunier, B., Lesot, M.-J., Marsala, C.: Modeling and management of subjective information in a fuzzy setting. Int. J. Gen Syst 42(1), 3–19 (2013)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bouchon-Meunier, B.: Useful information and questionnaires. Inf. Control 32(4), 368–378 (1976)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Diaz, J., Rifqi, M., Bouchon-Meunier, B., Jhean-Larose, S., Denhiére, G.: Imperfect answers in multiple choice questionnaires. In: Dillenbourg, P., Specht, M. (eds.) Times of Convergence. Technologies Across Learning Contexts. EC-TEL 2008, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5192. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Harrison, G.W., Lau, M.I., Rutström, E.E.: Estimating Risk Attitudes in Denmark: A Field Experiment, Department of Economics, College of Business Administration, University of Central Florida, USA (Harrison and Rutström), and Centre for Economic and Business Research, pp. 1–64. Denmark, Copenhagen (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chiappori, P.A., Paiella, M.: Relative risk aversion is constant:evidence from panel data. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 9(6), 1021–1052 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kaas, K., Goovaerts, M., Dhaene, J., Denuit, M.: Modern Actuarial Risk Theory. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston (2001)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Melicherčík, I.: Some useful optimization problems in portfolio theory.
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
    Rotar, I.V.: Actuarial Models: The Mathematics of Insurance. Chapman & Hall/CRC Press, Boca Raton, London, New York (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Špirková, J.: Mixture utility in general insurance. In: Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems. Theory and Methods Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 80, pp. 712–721. Springer (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Špirková, J., Král’, P.: Aggregation functions and personal utility functions in general insurance. Acta Polytech. Hung. 7(4), 7–23 (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Špirková, J.: Calibration of utility function. In: Aggregation Functions in Theory and in Practise, Advances in Intelligent systems and Computing, vol. 228, pp. 261–269. Springer (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Špirková, J.: Calibration of utility function and mixture premium. In: Laurent, A., et al. (ed.) IPMU 2014, Part I, CCIS 442, pp. 486–495. Springer International Publishing Switzerland (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wakker, P.P.: Explaining the characteristics of the power (CRRA), utility family. Health Econ. 17, 1329–1344 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EconomicsMatej Bel UniversityBanská BystricaSlovakia

Personalised recommendations