【保险学术前沿】Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2025年第1-2期目录与摘要

Core Insights - The article discusses various aspects of decision-making under risk and uncertainty, highlighting the importance of auxiliary assumptions in interpreting decisions and the implications of consumer behavior on welfare [3][7][13][16]. Group 1: Heuristic Assumptions - Interpreting decisions requires auxiliary assumptions about how decision-makers view their options and relate them to their lives, with theories constraining these assumptions [7][9]. - The article illustrates three methods to evaluate auxiliary assumptions: direct assessment, systematic manipulation, and archival analysis [9]. Group 2: (Dis)satisfaction with Risk Preferences - Approximately 50% of participants in surveys report dissatisfaction with their overall risk levels, with many believing they take insufficient risks rather than excessive ones [13][14]. - Internal factors, such as emotions, are more significant determinants of unsatisfactory risk-taking than external constraints [14]. Group 3: Consumer Misperceptions and Product Differentiation - Increasing product differentiation, often driven by big data and AI, can enhance welfare when consumers are informed but may reduce welfare when consumers have misperceptions [16][17]. - The implications of product differentiation depend on whether consumers overestimate or underestimate the benefits of products, with overestimation leading to potential welfare losses [17][18]. Group 4: Dynamic Decision-Making Under Ambiguity - Four types of dynamic decision-makers are identified: Resolute, Myopic, Sophisticated, and Expected Utility, each employing different strategies to solve dynamic problems [20][21]. - The type of decision-maker significantly influences the time taken to resolve ambiguity, with Expected Utility subjects spending more time on decisions [21]. Group 5: Cognitive Offloading in Risky Decisions - Providing external tools to reduce decision complexity can lower risk aversion and improve belief updating, but these tools are rarely utilized and do not significantly reduce irrational behavior [24][25]. Group 6: Evaluation of Intertemporal Streams - A study on intertemporal choice reveals that individuals may prefer receiving their salary in a way that violates standard economic models, suggesting a need for modifications to these models [26][27]. Group 7: Outcome Uncertainty Experiment - An experiment shows that subjects are risk-averse but prefer ambiguity, evaluating uncertain payoffs more optimistically than compound risks [30][31]. Group 8: True Overconfidence Revealed Through Actions - An experiment indicates that true overconfidence in relative ability can be inferred through actions rather than reported beliefs, with aggregate overconfidence observed only under minimal feedback conditions [32][33].