声明：本系列文章基于原期刊目录和摘要内容整理而得，仅限于读者交流学习。如有侵权，请联系删除。
期刊介绍：
《Journal of Risk and Uncertainty》为双月刊，每年6期，每期发表文章4篇左右。2022-2023年影响影子为4.7，JCR分区为Q1，是风险与保险领域的顶级权威学术期刊。该期刊以研究不确定性下的风险承担行为和决策分析的理论或实证文章为特色，涵盖的主题包括：决策理论和不确定性经济学、不确定性下的选择心理模型、风险和公共政策、不确定性下的行为实证分析，以及对现实世界风险承担行为的实证研究。
本期看点：
● 在印度，个体对热浪相关的死亡风险（气候异常导致）的重视程度是交通事故死亡风险的两倍以上，这一溢价相当于0.37-2.61百万美元的统计生命价值。
● 新冠疫苗的使用在降低感染风险时，也会激励短期内的冒险行为；医生在面对新疾病未来的不确定性时，行为并不总是完全理性的，因此有必要进行消偏策略以改善他们的决策。
● 相比人造来源，人们对自然来源的不确定性更不敏感：在解释基于模糊态度的真实世界行为时，值得考虑对自然来源的模糊态度。
● 扩大选择集中彩票的潜在奖品范围不会导致人们过度重视这些奖品并做出更高风险的选择
※ 68卷第1期目录
● A double-bounded risk-risk trade-off analysis of heatwave-related mortality risk: Evidence from India
● COVID-19 vaccine and risk-taking
● Ambiguity attitudes toward natural and artificial sources in gain and loss domains
● Menu-dependent risk attitudes: Theory and evidence
A double-bounded risk-risk trade-off analysis of heatwave-related mortality risk: Evidence from India
与热浪相关死亡风险的双边界风险-风险权衡分析：来自印度的证据
作者
Susan Chilton 纽卡斯尔大学；Darren Duxbury 纽卡斯尔大学；Irene Mussio 利兹大学；Jytte Seested Nielsen 纽卡斯尔大学；Smriti Sharma 纽卡斯尔大学
摘要：As climate variability is increasing, extreme events such as temperature fluctuations are expected to become more frequent. Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are especially vulnerable to heat-related variability and its ensuing impacts on mortality. Therefore, there is an urgent need to understand how citizens in LMICs trade-off climate-related mortality risks with other risks such as traffic accidents, and what values they place on reducing such risks. As populations in LMICs are income-constrained, we adopt a non-monetary, risk-risk trade-off (RRTO) valuation method instead of the standard willingness-to-pay stated preference-based approach. We estimate the resulting risk premium for heatwave-related mortality risks through an adapted double-bounded, dichotomous choice approach to establish whether, on average, people value avoiding these risks more compared to reducing traffic risks. Using a sample of over 2,300 individuals from across seven states in India, a country with one of the highest heat-related mortality globally, we estimate the heatwave risk mortality premium to be between 2.2–2.9, indicating that on average, individuals weigh reducing heatwave-related mortality risks more than two times that of reducing traffic accident mortality risks. Based on a standard benefit transfer methodology for LMICs, this premium translates to a Value of Statistical Life (VSL) of USD 0.37–2.61 million for India.
随着气候变异性的增加，温度波动等极端事件预计将变得更加频繁。低收入和中等收入国家（LMICs）特别容易受到与高温相关的变异性对死亡率的影响。因此，迫切需要了解LMICs中的公民如何权衡气候相关的死亡风险与其他风险（如交通事故）之间的关系，以及他们对降低此类风险的重视程度。由于LMICs中的人群受到收入限制，我们采用了非货币的风险-风险权衡（RRTO）估值方法，而不是标准的支付意愿陈述偏好方法。我们通过一种适应的双边界二分选择方法来估计与热浪相关死亡风险的风险溢价，以确定与减少交通风险相比，人们在平均意义上是否更重视避免这些风险。利用来自印度七个邦的2300多人的样本（印度是全球热相关死亡率最高的国家之一），我们估计热浪风险死亡率溢价在2.2-2.9之间，这表明：平均而言，个体对热浪相关的死亡风险的重视程度是交通事故死亡风险的2倍以上。根据LMICs的标准效益转移方法，对于印度，这一溢价相当于0.37-2.61百万美元的统计生命价值（VSL）。
原文链接：
COVID-19 vaccine and risk-taking
新冠肺炎疫苗与风险行为
作者
Shanike J. Smart（美国纽约州立大学）；Solomon W. Polachek（美国纽约州立大学）；
摘要：We assess whether the COVID-19 vaccine induces COVID-19 risky behavior (e.g., going to bars and restaurants) and thus reduces vaccine efficacy. A key empirical challenge is the endogeneity bias when comparing risk-taking by vaccination status since people choose whether to get vaccinated. To address this bias, we exploit rich survey panel data on individuals followed before and after vaccine availability over fourteen months in an event study fixed effects model with individual, time, sector, and county-by-time fixed effects and inverse propensity weights. We find evidence that vaccinated persons, regardless of the timing of vaccination, increase their risk-taking activities. The evidence is consistent with the “lulling effect”. While vaccine availability may reduce the risk of contracting COVID-19, it also contributes to further spread of the virus by incentivizing risk-taking in the short term.
我们评估新冠肺炎疫苗是否诱导新冠肺炎的冒险行为（例如，去酒吧和餐厅），从而降低疫苗效力。一个关键的实证挑战是比较接种疫苗状态下的风险行为的内生偏差，因为人们可以选择是否接种疫苗。为了解决这种偏差，我们在事件研究固定效应模型采用了丰富的调查面板数据，这些数据在疫苗可用性前后的14个月内跟踪了个体，该模型包括个人、时间、部门和县--时间固定效应和逆倾向得分权重。我们发现，无论何时接种疫苗，接种疫苗的人都会增加他们的冒险活动。这一证据与“安抚效应（lulling effect）”一致。虽然疫苗的可用性可能会降低感染新冠肺炎的风险，但它也会激励短期内的冒险行为，从而促进病毒的进一步传播。
原文链接：
Ambiguity attitudes toward natural and artificial sources in gain and loss domains
在收益和损失领域中对自然和人造来源的模糊态度
作者
Masahide Watanabe(龙谷大学), Toshio Fujimi(京都大学)
摘要：In this study, we compare ambiguity attitudes—ambiguity aversion and ambiguity-generated insensitivity (a-insensitivity)—toward natural and artificial sources of ambiguity in gain and loss domains with the participation of individuals with various attributes. In our experiment, we use precipitation during the rainy season as a natural source of ambiguity and the Ellsberg-type box as an artificial source. We find that people are more a-insensitive toward the natural source than the artificial source, even though the outcomes are identical. Additionally, people with low cognitive reflection ability are more a-insensitive than those with high cognitive reflection ability. Thus, people with low cognitive reflection ability have more difficulty in identifying likelihood under ambiguity and tend to view the likelihood of all uncertain events to be equal. Furthermore, we examine the relationships between ambiguity attitudes and real-world behaviors with regard to flood preparedness. In the group with high cognitive reflection ability, people with higher a-insensitivity are less likely to adopt flood preparedness behaviors in the gain domain of the natural source. However, we do not find any relationship between ambiguity attitudes and flood preparedness behaviors in the artificial source. Thus, applying ambiguity attitudes toward natural sources is worth considering when explaining real-world behaviors based on ambiguity attitudes.
在这项研究中，我们比较了不同的个人在收益和损失领域内对自然和人造不确定性来源的模糊态度——即模糊厌恶和模糊产生的不敏感性（a-不敏感性）。在我们的实验中，我们使用雨季的降水作为自然不确定性来源，并使用埃尔斯伯格型箱（the Ellsberg-type box）作为人造来源。我们发现，尽管结果相同，人们对自然来源比对人造来源更a-不敏感。此外，认知反思能力低的人比认知反思能力高的人更a-不敏感。因此，认知反思能力低的人在模糊下更难识别不确定情况下的可能性，并且倾向于认为所有不确定事件的可能性是相等的。此外，我们还研究了模糊态度与现实世界中有关防洪的行为之间的关系。在认知反思能力较高的群体中，a-不敏感性较高的人在自然来源的收益域中采取防洪行为的可能性较低。然而，我们没有发现人造来源的模糊态度与防洪行为之间存在任何关系。因此，在基于模糊态度解释真实世界的行为时，采用对自然来源的模糊态度是值得考虑的。
原文链接：
Menu-dependent risk attitudes: Theory and evidence
菜单依赖的风险态度：理论与证据
作者
Zhuo Chen（山东大学）, Russell Golman（卡内基梅隆大学），Jason Somerville（纽约联邦储备银行）
摘要：We test for a novel pattern of menu-dependent risk attitudes that forms the basis of recent theories of risky choice: Does expanding the range of potential prizes from lotteries in a choice set lead people to overweight those prizes and make riskier choices? Contrary to our hypothesis, we find no evidence of such a menu effect. Varying the potential prize offered by an actuarially unfavorable, high-risk lottery does not affect the likelihood of choosing a different, moderate-risk gamble in favor of a safer alternative. Our well-powered null results cast doubt on prominent theories of menu-dependent risk preferences.
我们检验了一种新的菜单依赖的风险态度模式，这种模式构成了近期风险选择理论的基础：扩大选择集中彩票的潜在奖品范围是否会导致人们过度重视这些奖品并做出更高风险的选择？与我们的假设相反，我们没有发现这种菜单效应的证据。改变精算上不利的高风险彩票所提供的潜在奖金，并不会影响选择其他中等风险赌博而放弃更安全替代选项的可能性。我们得出的有力的无效结果对菜单依赖风险偏好的著名理论提出了怀疑。
原文链接：
※ 68卷第2期目录
● Optimal e-cigarette policy when preferences and internalities are correlated
● Choice under uncertainty and cognitive load
● Does the COVID-19 pandemic change individuals’ risk preference?
● Are physicians rational under ambiguity?
Optimal e-cigarette policy when preferences and internalities are correlated
偏好与内部因素相关时的最优电子烟政策
作者
Michael E. Darden（约翰·霍普金斯大学）
摘要：This paper studies the policy implications of correlation between preferences and internalities in the context of tobacco products. Using novel survey data, I show that cigarette smokers who misperceive the relative health harms of cigarettes and e-cigarettes—and thus for whom internalities associated with imperfect information are potentially large—are also significantly less likely to respond to changes in relative prices. I build this heterogeneity into a model of cigarette and e-cigarette taxation to show that the relationship between the optimal e-cigarette tax and the mean elasticity of substitution is relatively flat. This is policy relevant because evidence of substitution is thought to suggest low (or even negative) e-cigarette taxes. Even at implausibly large degrees of substitution, simulated optimal e-cigarette taxes are positive and large.
本文以烟草产品为背景，研究了偏好与内部因素之间的相关性对政策的影响。通过使用新颖的调查数据，本文发现那些对香烟和电子烟的相对健康危害有误解的吸烟者（因此对他们来说，与不完全信息相关的内部因素可能很大）对相对价格变化做出反应的可能性也明显较低。本文将这种异质性纳入香烟和电子烟税收模型，结果表明最优电子烟税收与平均替代弹性之间的关系相对平缓。这具有政策相关性，因为替代证据被认为暗示着低（甚至负）的电子烟税。即使在替代程度大到不可思议的情况下，模拟的最优电子烟税仍然是正的且较高。
原文链接：
Choice under uncertainty and cognitive load
不确定性和认知负荷下的选择
作者
Adam Dominiak（奥胡斯大学），Peter Duersch（曼海姆大学）
摘要：Does exposure to cognitive load affect key properties of economic behavior? In this experiment, subjects face a series of simple binary decision tasks between prospects, testing for monotonicity in monetary payments, consistency with (first-order) stochastic dominance, reduction of compound lotteries, risk attitudes, and ambiguity attitudes. Cognitive load is manipulated via simultaneous memory tasks. Our data show treatment differences resulting from cognitive load for decision tasks with risky outcomes. However, cognitive load has no impact on monotonicity and ambiguity attitudes. Under a dual-process view of human decision-making, our findings suggest that ambiguity attitudes and preferences for “more certain money” are intuitive, not reasoned.
认知负荷暴露是否影响经济行为的关键属性？在这个实验中，受试者面临不同前景的一系列简单的二元决策任务，测试了货币支付的单调性、与（一阶）随机占优的一致性、复合彩票的减少、风险态度和模糊态度。我们通过同时记忆任务来操纵认知负荷。我们的数据显示，认知负荷对具有风险结果的决策任务产生了处理效果差异。然而，认知负荷对单调性和模糊态度没有影响。在人类决策的双过程（dual-process）视角下，我们的发现表明，模糊态度和对“更确定的金钱”的偏好的是直观的，而非经过推理得出的。
原文链接：
Does the COVID-19 pandemic change individuals’ risk preference?
COVID-19是否会改变个人的风险偏好？
作者
Tomohide Mineyama (国际货币基金组织), Kiichi Tokuoka(日本财务省)
摘要：In this study we exploit not only regional but also age and gender variation in exposure to COVID-19 to investigate its impact on risk tolerance. This study is the first to use age and gender variation in exposure to COVID-19, whereas the identification in previous studies relied on regional variation or simple differencing before and after the pandemic. Using a nationally representative household panel survey in Japan, we find that individuals who were exposed to higher risk of COVID-19, measured by the mortality rate, became more risk-tolerant. The result is in line with findings whereby the experience of standout adverse events and the large resulting losses increase individuals’ risk tolerance. However, the effect appears diminished after the vaccine rollout. An analysis using detailed vaccine records indicates that the vaccination offset the increase in risk tolerance due to the mortality risk, especially for individuals with a higher mortality rate for COVID-19. While the literature on this topic has been inconclusive with a few studies reporting insignificant changes in risk tolerance after the pandemic, our result suggests that granular information on exposure to COVID-19 helps identify its impact.
在这项研究中，我们不仅利用地区差异,还利用年龄和性别差异来研究COVID-19对风险偏好的影响。这是首次使用年龄和性别差异来研究COVID-19的暴露，而之前的研究主要依赖于地区差异或简单地在疫情前后进行比较。使用日本全国代表性家庭面板调查数据，我们发现，暴露于较高 COVID-19 风险（以死亡率衡量）的个人变得更具愿意承担风险。该结果与其他研究一致：经历重大不利事件及其带来的巨大损失会增加个人风险偏好。然而，疫苗推出后，这种效果似乎减弱了。使用详细疫苗记录的分析表明，疫苗接种抵消了因死亡风险而导致的风险偏好的增加，特别是对于 COVID-19 死亡率较高的个人而言。尽管有关该主题的文献尚无定论，少数研究报告流行病后风险偏好的变化并不显著，但我们的结果表明，有关COVID-19暴露更详细的信息有助于识别其影响。
原文链接：
Are physicians rational under ambiguity?
模糊下医生的行为是否理性？
作者
Yu Gao（北京大学）,Zhenxing Huang（上海财经大学）, Ning Liu（北京航空航天大学），Jia Yang（上海财经大学）
摘要：Do physicians behave rationally when facing a new disease? This study assesses physicians’ ambiguity attitudes towards the future severity of the COVID-19 pandemic in its early stages and the financial market in the US using an incentive-compatible online experiment. Our findings indicate that physicians demonstrate significant deviations from expected utility, characterized by a modest degree of ambiguity aversion and pronounced levels of likelihood insensitivity. While physicians generally show less insensitivity to uncertainty compared to the general public, both groups exhibited similar levels of irrationality when dealing with the ambiguity surrounding the COVID-19 severity. These results underscore the necessity for debiasing strategies among medical professionals, especially in managing real-world uncertainties, with a specific focus on mitigating likelihood insensitivity.
在面对新疾病时，医生的行为是否理性？本研究通过一个激励相容的在线实验，评估了医生在COVID-19新冠肺炎早期阶段对未来疫情严重性以及对美国金融市场的模糊态度。我们的研究发现，医生表现出显著偏离预期效用理论的行为，表现为适度的模糊厌恶与显著的对可能性不敏感。尽管与普通公众相比，医生通常表现出对不确定性的较低不敏感性，但两个群体在处理COVID-19严重性的模糊性时都表现出了相似水平的非理性。这些结果强调了在医疗专业人员中进行消偏策略的必要性，特别是在管理现实世界的不确定性时，重点应放在减轻可能性不敏感性。
原文链接：
往期文章：
更多推荐文章：
《Quarterly Journal of Economics 2010—2019年保险类精选文章目录与摘要》
《经典论文推荐：谁需要长期护理保险？对态度，信念和特征的调查》
《The Review of Economics and Statistics 17-22年保险类精选文章目录与摘要》
《经典论文推荐：美国私人长期护理保险市场综述》
《期刊Geneva Papers on Risk & Insurance 2023年48卷第4期目录》
《The Review of Economics and Statistics22-23年保险类精选文章目录与摘要》
《The Review of Economic Studies 2021-2023年保险精选文章目录与摘要》