Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 450

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Some Stronger Measures of Risk Aversion in the Small and the Large with Applications

Ross, Stephen A.·1981·Econometrica

Abstract

THE ARROW-PRATT MEASURES of risk aversion for von Neumann-Morgenstern utility functions have become workhorses for analyzing problems in the microeconomics of uncertainty. They have been used to characterize the qualitative properties of demand in insurance and asset markets, to examine the properties of risk taking in taxation models, and to study the interaction between risk and life-cycle savings problems to name just a few applications. Equally importantly, they have generated the linear risk tolerance class of utility functions which has provided canonical examples in such diverse areas as portfolio theory and the theory of teams. Despite these successes, there have been a number of areas for which the results have been weaker than hoped. It is natural to use the risk aversion measures to compare the behavior of individuals in risky choice situations. For example, consider the individual portfolio choice problem in a two asset world with a riskless asset and a risky asset. If individual A has a uniformly higher Arrow-Pratt coefficient of risk aversion than individual B, then B will always choose a portfolio combination with more wealth invested in the risky asset. But, suppose that both assets are risky. Now, there is no obvious sense in which the more risk averse individual can be said to hold a less risky portfolio, but it seems strange that such a simple alteration should destroy the analytics which support the basic intuition. Similarly, consider the basic insurance problem. If one individual, A, is more risk averse than another, B, in the Arrow-Pratt sense, it follows that A will pay a larger premium to insure against a random loss than will B. Typically, though, an individual evaluates partial rather than total insurance, that is, only some gambles can be insured against and others must be retained. In this case, even when the gambles which are retained are independent from those which are insured, it is no longer true that the individual whose Arrow-Pratt measure of risk aversion is higher will pay a larger insurance premium. The situation is no better when we consider comparative statics exercises for a single individual. Decreasing absolute risk aversion in the sense of Arrow and

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/1911515

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 450

Metadata

Authors
Ross, S. A.
Venue
Econometrica
Publisher
JSTOR
Published
1981-05
Volume
49
Issue
3
Pages
621
ISSN
0012-9682 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1977632617
Cited by
450
References
3
FWCI
3.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Some Stronger Measures of Risk Aversion in the Small and the Large with Applications. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1911515
The paper
Ross, S. A. (1981). Some Stronger Measures of Risk Aversion in the Small and the Large with Applications. Econometrica. https://doi.org/10.2307/1911515

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.