摘要：《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
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：
●在个体跨期决策的实证研究中，同时纳入经济学不耐性指标与心理学坚毅度量指标具有潜在价值。
●在对受访者进行风险态度研究时，基于激励性测量的风险容忍度更为稳定，而基于调查的测量则表现出更高的敏感性，并在遭遇负面冲击时出现下降。
●趋势支配（trend dominance）：当通过图表呈现一系列结果时，人们在评估中倾向于偏好“随时间改善”的趋势，即使这种偏好会导致整体福利显著降低。但趋势支配并不反映真实偏好。
●受试者的视觉注意力随呈现信息变化，眼动数据不仅与偏好参数相关，还会改变对哪种决策理论更适合解释选择数据的推断。
●期望管理理论（Managed Expectations Theory）：个体对结果好坏的事前概率评估可作为参考点，塑造彩票结果的事后效用。期望管理理论核心假设包括：参考点假设和人为概率假设。
●Daniel Kahneman最后一项工作削弱了近期将收入再分配简单纳入收益成本分析的论点，提示此类政策目标仍更适合通过财政政策而非监管干预来实现。
●查询理论（Query Theory, QT）提供了一种关于偏好构建的心理过程理论，阐释了注意力过程和记忆动态如何导致框架效应及其他判断与选择异常。QT的过程性解释——将框架效应归因于注意力转移及随后的记忆检索差异——可为PT的损失规避提供一定的心理过程解释。
●自然选择会使决策偏向在祖先环境中理性的选择，但在现代环境中可能不适用，从而产生表面上非理性但规律可预测的结果。
●时间偏好：人类倾向于高估即时回报而低估同等未来回报，这一现象被称为时间折现。人们能够直接根据环境约束调整延迟折现，而不依赖情绪系统的输入。
※ 本期目录
第70卷 第3期
●Grit, discounting, & time inconsistency
●The evolution of risk attitudes: A panel study of the university years
●Trend dominance
●Visual formats in risk preference elicitation: What catches the eye?
第71卷 第1期
●Managed Expectations Theory: Ex ante likelihoods influence ex post utilities
●Daniel Kahneman’s underappreciated last published paper: Empirical implications for benefit-cost analysis and a chat session discussion with bots
●A meta-analysis of query theory, a psychological process account of framing effects
●Linking cognitive biases: The successes of a test case that predicted variations in endowment effect magnitudes
●Adapting temporal preference to scarcity: A role for emotion?
Grit, discounting, & time inconsistency
坚毅、折现与时间不一致性
作者
Christian König-Kersting（奥地利因斯布鲁克大学 银行与金融系），Stefan T. Trautmann（德国海德堡大学经济学研究所行为金融学教席；荷兰蒂尔堡大学）
摘要：We study the association of the perseverance of effort and the consistency of interests components of the psychological measure of grit with economic measures of impatience and time inconsistency in the general population. We find that impatience is associated with grit through the perseverance of effort component. No association of time inconsistency with grit is found. Predicting participants’ financial and health outcomes and behaviors, we find that impatience and grit are predictive for both outcomes, but this is not the case for time inconsistency. Our findings suggest that it can be beneficial for empirical studies of intertemporal decisions to include economic impatience and psychological grit measures.
本文研究心理学“坚毅”度量的两个组成维度——努力的坚持性与兴趣的一致性——与经济学指标中的不耐性和时间不一致性之间的关系。结果显示，不耐性与坚毅中的努力坚持性显著相关，而时间不一致性与坚毅无显著关联。进一步预测参与者的财务和健康结果及相关行为时，我们发现，不耐性和坚毅均具有显著作用，而时间不一致性未表现出显著影响。研究结果表明，在跨期决策的实证研究中，同时纳入经济学不耐性指标与心理学坚毅测量具有潜在价值。
The evolution of risk attitudes: A panel study of the university years
风险态度的演变：一项针对大学生的追踪研究
作者
Catherine Eckel（美国德克萨斯农工大学经济学系），Rick Wilson（美国莱斯大学政治学系），Nanyin Yang（澳大利亚悉尼大学经济学院）
摘要：We analyze a unique longitudinal dataset of university students to investigate the stability of risk preferences over a five-year period. Our findings indicate that subjects’ risk tolerance, as measured by incentivized lottery choices, tends to increase over time, while it moves in the opposite direction when assessed through a non-incentivized survey question. Furthermore, we exploit the COVID-19 pandemic to explore the impact of negative experiences and emotions on the temporal changes in subjects’ risk preferences. Our analysis reveals that, within the same group of respondents, the risk tolerance elicited by the incentivized measure proves to be more stable, whereas the survey measure exhibits greater sensitivity, declining in response to negative shocks. These results enhance our understanding of how risk preferences evolve over time and emphasize the importance of employing appropriate measurement methods when investigating risk attitudes.
我们利用一项针对大学生的独特纵向数据集，研究了风险偏好在五年期间的稳定性。研究结果表明，当通过激励性彩票选择测量时，受试者的风险容忍度随时间呈上升趋势；但通过非激励性的调查问题测量时，则呈相反方向变化。此外，我们利用新冠疫情这一外生冲击，探讨了负面经历和情绪对受试者风险偏好随时间变化的影响。分析结果显示，在同一组受访者中，基于激励性测量的风险容忍度更为稳定，而基于调查的测量则表现出更高的敏感性，并在遭遇负面冲击时出现下降。这些发现加深了我们对风险偏好随时间演变的理解，并强调在研究风险态度时采用适当测量方法的重要性。
Trend dominance
趋势支配
作者
Markus Prior（美国普林斯顿大学公共与国际事务学院及政治学系），Talbot M. Andrews（美国康奈尔大学政府学系）
摘要：People prefer for things to get better over time when evaluating series of outcomes presented in graphs, even at the expense of substantial overall welfare. We refer to this empirical regularity as trend dominance, and demonstrate it Across domains including economic growth, environmental outcomes, and the COVID vaccine rollout. We apply a succinct measurement instrument to empirically calibrate trend dominance, characterizing individual-level variation in how much total welfare individuals sacrifice in exchange for increasing trends. Across several experiments conducted on a NORC probability sample as well as convenience samples, we present evidence that trend dominance does not reflect genuine preferences. Trend dominance is, at least in part, a product of respondents struggling to identify the total benefits presented in a sequence and assuming trends continue beyond the plotted sequence. Media organizations, policymakers, and public health authorities routinely use sequence plots to illustrate forecasts and projections, but people’s evaluations of these charts often do not reflect preferences. If people internalize these (ill-considered) evaluations, or if the evaluations bias their behavior, the significance of these distortions extends to affecting behavior directly. Designers of graphs should take into account the biases people bring to visual presentations of over-time data.
当通过图表呈现一系列结果时，人们在评估中倾向于偏好“随时间改善”的趋势，即使这种偏好会导致整体福利显著降低。我们将这一经验规律称为趋势支配（trend dominance），并在多个领域加以验证，包括经济增长、环境结果以及新冠疫苗推广。我们使用简洁的测量工具，对趋势支配进行实证校准，并刻画个体在“为获得上升趋势而牺牲多少总福利”上的差异。基于NORC概率样本及便利样本开展的多项实验表明，趋势支配并不反映真实偏好。趋势支配至少部分源于受访者难以识别序列呈现的总收益，并假设趋势会延续至图表之外。媒体机构、政策制定者及公共卫生部门在展示预测和推算时，常采用序列图表，但人们对这些图表的评价往往并不代表其真实偏好。如果人们内化这些（缺乏深思的）评价，或这些评价影响其行为，则这种偏差的意义将直接扩展至行为层面。因此，图表设计者应充分考虑人们在解释时间序列数据时所带来的认知偏差。
Visual formats in risk preference elicitation: What catches the eye?
风险偏好引导中的可视化呈现形式：视觉注意力的作用
作者
Michelle S. Segovia（美国特拉华大学应用经济与统计系），Marco A. Palma（美国德克萨斯农工大学农业经济系），Jayson L. Lusk（美国俄克拉荷马州立大学农业科学与自然资源系），Andreas C. Drichoutis（希腊雅典农业大学应用经济与社会科学学院农业经济与农村发展系）
摘要：We explore the effect of lottery presentation formats on elicitation of risk preferences using a popular probability varying task (Holt & Laury. The American Economic Review 92 (5), 1644–1655. 2002) and a payoff-varying task (Drichoutis & Lusk. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 53 (2), 89–106. 2016). The presentation formats use horizontal bars that vary either the width or height of the bars (or both at the same time) to help subjects in judging how large or small probabilities and monetary amounts are in a given choice set. These graphical formats are compared to a text only format. We complement our choice data with eye tracking data that enriches our structural models with additional information regarding how visual attention varies with the presented information. While we find no statistically significant effects of presentation formats on elicited parameters for risk preferences, we find that eye tracking information not only is associated with preference parameters, but it also changes the inferences with respect to which decision theory better fits the choice data.
本文研究彩票呈现形式对风险偏好引导的影响，采用了概率变化任务（Holt & Laury, 2002）和收益变化任务（Drichoutis & Lusk, 2016）。呈现形式通过水平条的宽度或高度变化（或同时变化）来帮助受试者判断给定选择集中的概率大小及金额规模。这些图形形式与只有文本呈现的形式进行了对比。我们还结合了眼动追踪数据，为结构模型提供额外信息，以揭示受试者的视觉注意力如何随呈现信息变化。结果显示，虽然呈现形式对风险偏好参数本身没有显著统计影响，但眼动数据不仅与偏好参数相关，还会改变对哪种决策理论更适合解释选择数据的推断。
Managed Expectations Theory: Ex ante likelihoods influence ex post utilities
期望管理理论：事前概率影响事后效用
作者
Richard J. Zeckhauser（美国哈佛大学肯尼迪政府学院），W. Kip Viscusi（美国范德堡大学法学院）
摘要：Daniel Kahneman, often in collaboration with Amos Tversky, developed foundational frameworks for understanding human decision-making. Building on that tradition, this article proposes that individuals’ ex ante assessments of the likelihood of good and bad outcomes serve as reference points that shape the ex post utility of lottery outcomes. In prospect theory, prior holdings act as reference points for evaluating outcomes—but probabilities themselves play no such role. This article introduces Managed Expectations Theory, which rests on two core hypotheses:
Reference Point Hypothesis: Ex ante probabilities serve as reference points for ex post utility. Specifically, more pessimistic expectations about uncertain outcomes enhance ex post utility, regardless of whether the outcome turns out to be good or bad.
Four experiments, using a nationally representative adult sample of over 1,000 participants, strongly support this hypothesis. Lower [higher] ex ante likelihoods are associated with greater ex post utility for good [bad] outcomes.
Created Likelihoods Hypothesis: Recognizing that likelihood assessments act as reference points, individuals deliberately manage these assessments to be more pessimistic than an objective or statistical “outside view”—in order to boost their ex post utilities.
Supporting this conjecture, the good outcomes participants labeled as “likely” occurred far more often than the bad outcomes they labeled as “likely.” These created likelihoods help explain a central feature of prospect theory’s probability weighting function: the underestimation of high-probability good events and the overestimation of low-probability bad events.
Daniel Kahneman与Amos Tversky合作，建立了理解人类决策的基础框架。在此传统基础上，本文提出，个体对结果好坏的事前概率评估可作为参考点，塑造彩票结果的事后效用。在前景理论中，先前持有量作为参考点来评估结果，但概率本身并不起此作用。本文提出期望管理理论（Managed Expectations Theory），其核心假设包括：
1.参考点假设（Reference Point Hypothesis）：事前概率作为事后效用的参考点。具体而言，对不确定结果的更悲观预期会增强事后效用，无论结果是好还是坏。
基于一项包含超过1,000名具有全国代表性的成年人样本的四个实验，强烈支持该假设。实验显示，较低（较高）的事前概率与好（坏）结果的更高事后效用相关。
2.人为概率假设（Created Likelihoods Hypothesis）：认识到概率评估充当参考点后，个体会故意使这些评估比客观或统计“外部视角”更悲观，从而提高事后效用。
支持这一假设的证据为：参与者标记为“可能发生”的好结果出现频率远高于标记为“可能发生”的坏结果。这种人为概率有助于解释前景理论概率加权函数的核心特征：高概率好事件被低估，而低概率坏事件被高估。
Daniel Kahneman’s underappreciated last published paper: Empirical implications for benefit-cost analysis and a chat session discussion with bots
Daniel Kahneman鲜为人知的最后一篇论文：对收益成本分析的实证启示及与聊天机器人讨论
作者
C. Monica Capra（美国克莱蒙特研究生大学；美国亚利桑那大学自由哲学研究中心），Thomas J. Kniesner（美国雪城大学经济学名誉教授；德国波恩劳动经济学研究所（IZA）；美国克莱蒙特研究生大学经济科学系）
摘要：Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman’s last published paper is an adversarial collaboration in which he and Matthew Killingsworth reconcile conflicting empirical results from their previous research on income and reported happiness, with Barbara Mellers as a facilitator. The empirical results use quantile regression to allow for measured income heterogeneity effects that include notch points in the estimated marginal utilities of income. Our analysis examines Kahneman’s last paper’s conceptual innovations and challenges to assumptions about diminishing marginal utility of income. We review his contributions to emotional well-being measurement and employ a novel AI-simulated dialogue between the late Amos Tversky and Sir Angus Deaton to explore interdisciplinary perspectives on the findings. Our paper demonstrates how Kahneman’s final research undermines recent arguments for incorporating income redistribution simply into benefit-cost analysis, suggesting that such objectives remain better addressed through fiscal policy rather than regulatory interventions. His final published work exemplifies Kahneman’s commitment to empirical precision and theoretical flexibility, even when contradicting his earlier conclusions.
诺贝尔奖得主Daniel Kahneman的最后一篇发表论文是一项对抗性合作（adversarial collaboration）研究，他与Matthew Killingsworth和Barbara Mellers合作完成，对此前关于收入与报告幸福感研究中存在的实证结果冲突进行了整合。该实证结果采用分位回归方法，以考虑收入异质性对边际效用估计的影响，包括边际效用估计中的“跃点”（notch points）。本文分析了Kahneman最后一篇论文的概念创新，以及对收入边际效用递减假设的挑战。我们回顾了他在情感幸福感测量方面的贡献，并通过一种模拟人工智能对话——已故Amos Tversky与Sir Angus Deaton的虚拟讨论——探讨跨学科视角下的研究发现。研究表明，Kahneman的最后工作削弱了近期将收入再分配简单纳入收益成本分析的论点，提示此类政策目标仍更适合通过财政政策而非监管干预来实现。这篇最终发表的论文体现了Kahneman对实证精确性与理论灵活性的坚持，即便这些发现与他早期结论相矛盾。
A meta-analysis of query theory, a psychological process account of framing effects
查询理论的元分析：对框架效应的心理过程解释
作者
Jordana W. Composto（美国普林斯顿大学），Shannon M. Duncan（美国宾夕法尼亚大学），Eric J. Johnson（美国哥伦比亚大学），Elke U. Weber（美国普林斯顿大学）
摘要：Query Theory (QT) offers a psychological process theory of preference construction that shows how attentional processes and memory dynamics give rise to framing effects and other judgment and choice anomalies. These same anomalies are also modeled by Prospect Theory (PT) and its functional or "as-if" account, particularly through its feature of loss aversion. Given the lack of clear evidence that loss aversion results from differences in emotional reactions to gains versus losses, it is worth asking whether QT's process account—which explains framing effects as resulting from attentional shifts and subsequent differences in memory retrieval—provides a psychological process account of the loss-aversion feature of PT. Since QT's introduction in 2007, a series of studies have examined its accounts of framing effects in risky choice, intertemporal choice, and multi-attribute decisions. The present review used meta-analytic techniques to evaluate the main claims of QT by synthesizing findings from 27 papers. Across three meta-analyses, we find that (1) decision frame significantly affects query order (d = 0.34, CI95 = [0.27,0.41], n = 11,202), (2) QT mechanisms (query order and content) partially mediate the effect of decision frame on choice, and (3) manipulating query order decreases the effect of decision frame on choice from d = 0.92 (CI95 = [0.74,1.09], n = 1,680) to d = 0.39 (CI95 = [0.25,0.53], n = 1,720).
查询理论（Query Theory, QT）提供了一种关于偏好构建的心理过程理论，阐释了注意力过程和记忆动态如何导致框架效应及其他判断与选择异常。类似的异常现象也可通过前景理论（Prospect Theory, PT）及其功能性或“如若”解释建模，尤其体现在损失规避（loss aversion）特征上。然而，关于损失规避是否源于对收益与损失的情绪反应差异尚无明确证据，因此值得探讨QT的过程性解释——将框架效应归因于注意力转移及随后的记忆检索差异——是否可为PT的损失规避提供心理过程解释。自2007年QT提出以来，一系列研究考察了其对风险选择、跨期选择及多属性决策中框架效应的解释。本文采用元分析技术综合了27篇论文的研究结果，对QT的主要主张进行评估。三项元分析结果显示：（1）决策框架显著影响查询顺序（d=0.34,CI95=[0.27,0.41],n=11,202）；（2）QT机制（查询顺序和内容）部分中介了决策框架对选择的影响；（3）操控查询顺序可显著降低决策框架对选择的影响，从d=0.92(CI95= [0.74,1.09],n=1,680)降至d=0.39(CI95= [0.25,0.53],n=1,720)。
Linking cognitive biases: The successes of a test case that predicted variations in endowment effect magnitudes
认知偏差的关联：一个成功案例对禀赋效应大小差异的预测
作者
Owen D Jones（美国范德堡大学法律、脑科学与行为研究Weave家族讲席教授；法学教授、生物科学教授；Weaver Family Program on Law, Brain Sciences, and Behavior项目主任）
摘要：Cognitive biases are patterned decisions that deviate from the predictions of rational-choice models. They often have profound and adverse impacts on behavior, making them important to understand. The common approach to them catalogs empirical regularities that exist but lacks a sound theoretical foundation to explain and predict why the biases exist, why they are patterned as they are, and how we can best predict new and deeper patterns. The approach described here can provide such a foundation, link cognitive biases together (as a function of common underlying psychological processes), and increase our predictive power. This article reviews a 20-year arc of research that tested whether looking at cognitive biases through the lens of evolutionary biology—essentially, at how all brains are shaped to have behavioral leanings—can illuminate the origins of biases and thereby enable useful, testable predictions. The test case centers on the “endowment effect” and led to four interconnected discoveries about how, when, and where the endowment effect arises. It culminated in the successful prediction of a very large percentage of the variance in endowment effect magnitudes across a large new set of items—something never before accomplished. The key fact is that natural selection can bias decision-making toward choices that were rational in ancestral conditions but are mismatched to modern environments, yielding outcomes that are irrational yet predictably patterned. More broadly, the success of this test case suggests that many other cognitive biases may be similarly approached and potentially linked by this predictively useful framework.
认知偏差是偏离理性选择模型预测的规律性决策行为。它们常常对行为产生深远且负面的影响，因此理解它们非常重要。传统研究方法通常只是整理已存在的经验规律，却缺乏解释和预测这些偏差存在原因、形成模式及其潜在新规律的理论基础。本文所述的方法能够提供这样的理论基础，将认知偏差联系起来（作为共同心理过程的函数），并增强预测能力。本文回顾了长达20年的研究历程，考察了从进化生物学角度理解认知偏差——即脑如何在进化中形成特定行为倾向——是否能够揭示偏差起源，并生成可检验的预测。研究以禀赋效应（endowment effect）为测试案例，取得了四项互相关联的发现，揭示了禀赋效应产生的机制、时机与场景。最终，研究成功预测了新一批物品中禀赋效应幅度的绝大部分差异，这在此前研究中尚未实现。核心结论是：自然选择会使决策偏向在祖先环境中理性的选择，但在现代环境中可能不适用，从而产生表面上非理性但规律可预测的结果。更广泛地说，这一测试案例的成功表明，许多其他认知偏差也可能通过这一具有预测力的框架加以研究和关联。
Adapting temporal preference to scarcity: A role for emotion?
在稀缺条件下调整时间偏好：情绪的作用？
作者
Bastien Blain（英国伦敦大学学院实验心理学系 情感脑实验室；Max Planck UCL计算精神病学与衰老研究中心；法国巴黎潘提翁-索邦大学CNRS 索邦经济中心），Laura K. Globig（美国纽约大学 心理学与神经科学系；英国伦敦大学学院实验心理学系情感脑实验室；Max Planck UCL计算精神病学与衰老研究中心），Tali Sharot（英国伦敦大学学院实验心理学系情感脑实验室；Max Planck UCL计算精神病学与衰老研究中心；美国麻省理工学院脑与认知科学系）
摘要：A critical optimization problem is how to distribute resource consumption over time. Humans tend to value immediate rewards over equivalent future rewards—a phenomenon called temporal discounting. Such imbalance can lead to poor health, education, and financial decisions. It is also a hurdle for implementing sustainability policies. A major research goal is to identify factors that influence temporal discounting, so that policymakers could develop interventions to correct for this imbalance. One such factor is available resources; scarcity may increase in temporal discounting. Another potential factor is emotion; negative emotions may lead to high temporal discounting. However, emotion and resources are not independent. For example, losing a large sum of money will lead to negative affect. Here, we take advantage of one of the largest global ‘income shocks’ in history, to tease apart the role of emotion and income on temporal discounting. We tested 1,145 individuals as the market was crashing in late March 2020 and unemployment rising and then retested 200 of those individuals as the market was recovering in June 2020. We found that income shock was strongly related to an increase in delay discounting using cross-sectional and longitudinal data. Importantly, this relationship was independent of the negative impact on affect. These findings suggest that, contrary to wide held assumptions, people directly adapt delay discounting to environmental constraints, without the need for input from the affective system. This independence may be adaptive, as affect is a noisy reflection of environmental constraints, which may lead to suboptimal choice.
资源分配随时间优化是一个关键问题。人类倾向于高估即时回报而低估同等未来回报，这一现象被称为时间折现（temporal discounting）。这种偏向可能导致健康、教育和财务决策不佳，同时也是可持续政策实施的障碍。研究的主要目标之一是识别影响时间折现的因素，以便政策制定者能设计干预措施纠正这种偏差。可用资源是一个重要因素：资源稀缺可能增加时间折现。另一个潜在因素是情绪：负面情绪可能导致高时间折现。然而，情绪与资源并非独立，例如，大额金钱损失会引发负面情绪。本文利用历史上最大规模的全球“收入冲击”之一，区分情绪与收入对时间折现的作用。研究对象为1,145名个体，测试时间为2020年3月底市场崩盘、失业率上升期间，并在2020年6月市场恢复时，对其中200名个体进行复测。结果显示，收入冲击与延迟折现增加密切相关，无论是横截面还是纵向数据均如此。重要的是，这一关系独立于负面情绪的影响。这些发现表明，与普遍假设相反，人们能够直接根据环境约束调整延迟折现，而不依赖情绪系统的输入。这种独立性可能具有适应性，因为情绪仅是环境约束的噪声反映，可能导致次优决策。
【保险学术前沿】The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance 2025年第3期目录与摘要
【保险学术前沿】文章推荐：2025全球保险业展望：运营模式革新，塑造行业未来
来源：13个精算师
