Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 352

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Changes in Background Risk and Risk Taking Behavior

Eeckhoudt, Louis, Gollier, Christian, Schlesinger, Harris·1996·Econometrica

Abstract

ECONOMIC DECISION MAKING UNDER UNCERTAINTY often takes place in the presence of multiple and in markets that are less than complete. As a consequence, choices about endogenous sometimes must be made while simultaneously facing one or more immutable exogenous risks that are not under the control of the agent, and that are independent of endogenous risks. It is somehow natural to assume that an exogenous deterioration in background wealth will cause an individual to take more care elsewhere. If we define a deterioration, for example, as making the individual poorer by removing a fixed amount of initial wealth, we know from Pratt (1964) that decreasing absolute risk aversion (DARA) of an individual's von Neumann-Morgenstern utility function yields this natural result. If, on the other hand, background wealth becomes riskier due to the addition of a zero-mean risk, that is also statistically independent of all other risks, behavior will be more risk averse if and only if preferences are risk vulnerable as defined by Gollier and Pratt (1996). Risk vulnerability (described below in Section 4) is a stronger notion than DARA and includes proper risk aversion (Pratt and Zeckhauser (1987)) and standard risk aversion (Eeckhoudt and Kimball (1992), Kimball (1993)) as particular cases. But a deterioration in background wealth may encompass more complicated distribution changes than the introduction of another statistically independent risk. In this paper, we examine background wealth deteriorations that take the form of both general firstand second-degree stochastic dominance changes in risk (FSD and SSD respectively). In particular, we determine conditions that are both necessary and sufficient for each of these two types of background risk changes to imply more risk-averse behavior on the part of the individual. For the case of FSD changes, this condition turns out to be Ross' stronger characterization of decreasing absolute risk aversion. In the case of general SSD changes in the distribution of background wealth, the condition derived is a stronger version (in Ross' sense) of the conditions characterizing preferences that are locally risk vulnerable in the sense of Gollier and Pratt. The necessary and sufficient conditions derived are fairly restrictive upon preferences. However, if we take as positive behavior that individuals act in a more risk-averse manner whenever the distribution of background wealth deteriorates, these conditions place canonical limits upon appropriate utility representations. At the very least, they

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 · 10.2307/2171866

Cites

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

Cited by

See all 352

Metadata

Authors
Eeckhoudt, L., Gollier, C., & Schlesinger, H.
Venue
Econometrica
Publisher
JSTOR
Published
1996-05
Volume
64
Issue
3
Pages
683
ISSN
0012-9682 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2074142241
Cited by
352
References
0
FWCI
4.52
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: Changes in Background Risk and Risk Taking Behavior. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2171866
The paper
Eeckhoudt, L., Gollier, C., & Schlesinger, H. (1996). Changes in Background Risk and Risk Taking Behavior. Econometrica. https://doi.org/10.2307/2171866

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.