Testing for Prudence and Skewness Seeking

References

• Baltussen G., Post T., Van den Assem M. J., Wakker P. P. Random incentive systems in a dynamic choice experiment. (2010) . Working paper, University of Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
• Beattie J., Loomes G. The impact of incentives upon risky choice experiments. J. Risk Uncertainty (1997) 14(2):155–168Crossref, Google Scholar
• Briec W., Kerstens K., Jokung O. Mean-variance-skewness portfolio performance gauging: A general shortage function and dual approach. Management Sci. (2007) 53(1):135–149Link, Google Scholar
• Brockett P. L., Golden L. L. A class of utility functions containing all the common utility functions. Management Sci. (1987) 33(8):955–964Link, Google Scholar
• Brockett P. L., Kahane Y. Risk, return, skewness and preference. Management Sci. (1992) 38(6):851–866Link, Google Scholar
• Camerer C. F. An experimental test of several generalized utility theories. J. Risk Uncertainty (1989) 2(1):61–104Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carroll C. D. How does future income affect current consumption? Quart. J. Econom. (1994) 109(1):111–147Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carroll C. D., Kimball M. S., Durlauf S. N., Blume L. E. Precautionary savings and precautionary wealth. The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (2008) (MacMillan, London) 579–584Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chiu H. Skewness preference, risk aversion, and the precedence relations on stochastic changes. Management Sci. (2005) 51(12):1816–1828Link, Google Scholar
• Chiu H. Skewness preference, risk taking and expected utility maximisation. Geneva Risk Insurance Rev. (2010) 35(2):108–129Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cubitt R., Starmer C., Sugden R. On the validity of the random lottery incentive system. Experiment. Econom. (1998) 1(2):115–131Crossref, Google Scholar
• Deck C., Schlesinger H. Exploring higher-order risk effects. Rev. Econom. Stud. (2010) 77(4):1403–1420Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dynan K. How prudent are consumers? J. Political Econom. (1993) 101(6):1104–1113Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ebert S. Moment characterization of higher-order risk preferences. (2010) . Working paper, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany. http://www.uni-bonn.de/∼ebertsGoogle Scholar
• Eeckhoudt L., Gollier C. The impact of prudence on optimal prevention. Econom. Theory (2005) 26(4):989–994Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eeckhoudt L., Schlesinger H. Putting risk in its proper place. Amer. Econom. Rev. (2006) 96(1):280–289Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eeckhoudt L., Schlesinger H. Changes in risk and the demand for saving. J. Monetary Econom. (2008) 55(7):1329–1336Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eeckhoudt L., Rey B., Schlesinger H. A good sign for multivariate risk taking. Management Sci. (2007) 53(1):117–124Link, Google Scholar
• Esö P., White L. Precautionary bidding in auctions. Econometrica (2004) 72(1):77–92Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fagart M.-C., Sinclair-Desgagné B. Ranking contingent monitoring systems. Management Sci. (2007) 53(9):1501–1509Link, Google Scholar
• Fei W., Schlesinger H. Precautionary insurance demand with state-dependent background risk. J. Risk Insurance (2008) 75(1):1–16Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fischbacher U. Z-tree: Zurich toolbox for readymade economic experiments. Experiment. Econom. (2007) 10(2):171–178Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gollier C. Ecological discounting. J. Econom. Theory (2010) 145(2):812–829Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gomes F., Michaelides A. Optimal life-cycle asset allocation: Understanding the empirical evidence. J. Finance (2005) 60(2):869–904Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hausdorff F. Summationsmethoden und Momentfolgen. I.. Mathematische Zeitschrift (1921) 9(1–2):74–109Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kimball M. S. Precautionary savings in the small and in the large. Econometrica (1990) 58(3):53–73Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kimball M. S. Standard risk aversion. Econometrica (1993) 61(3):589–611Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kraus A., Litzenberger R. H. Skewness preference and the valuation of risky assets. J. Finance (1976) 31(4):1085–1100Google Scholar
• Laury S. K. Pay one or pay all: Random selection of one choice for payment. (2005) . Working Paper 06-13, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
• Leland H. E. Savings and uncertainty: The precautionary demand for saving. Quart. J. Econom. (1968) 82(3):465–473Crossref, Google Scholar
• MacGillivray H. L. Skewness and asymmetry: Measures and orderings. Ann. Statist. (1986) 14(3):994–1011Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mao J. C. T. Survey of capital budgeting: Theory and practice. J. Finance (1970) 25(2):349–369Crossref, Google Scholar
• Menezes C. F., Geiss C., Tressler J. Increasing downside risk. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1980) 70(5):921–932Google Scholar
• Montgomery D. C.Design and Analysis of Experiments (2005) (John Wiley & Sons, New York) Google Scholar
• Pratt J. W., Zeckhauser R. J. Precautionary savings in the small and in the large. Econometrica (1987) 55(1):143–154Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roger P. Mixed risk aversion and preference for risk disaggregation: A story of moments. Theory Decision (2011) 70(1):27–44Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sandmo A. The effect of uncertainty on savings decisions. Rev. Econom. Stud. (1970) 37(3):353–360Crossref, Google Scholar
• Starmer C., Sugden R. Does the random-lottery incentive system elicit true preferences? An experimental investigation. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1991) 81(4):971–978Google Scholar
• Tarazona-Gomez M. Are individuals prudent? An experimental approach using lottery choices. (2004) . Working paper, Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
• Treich N. Risk-aversion and prudence in rent-seeking games. Public Choice (2010) 145(3):339–349Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tsetlin I., Winkler R. L. Multiattribute utility satisfying a preference for combining good with bad. Management Sci. (2009) 55(12):1942–1952Link, Google Scholar
• van Zwet W. R.Convex Transformations of Random Variables (1964) . Mathematical Centre Tracts 7. Mathematisch Centrum, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
• White L. Prudence in bargaining: The effect of uncertainty on bargaining outcomes. Games Econom. Behav. (2008) 62(1):211–231Crossref, Google Scholar