Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2026年第1期目录与摘要

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。2024年影响影子为2.3，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：

●卡路里标签是为应对肥胖流行而推行的一项普遍政策，但其实际成效甚微。提升自我效能感和强调暴饮暴食的长期健康风险，这两种预助推均能减少对卡路里信息的回避，这揭示了预助推在应对肥胖流行（全球最大的公共健康问题之一）中的潜在作用。

●相对风险厌恶会随结果量级的增大而增强，而不耐烦程度则随结果量级的增大而减弱，这无法被同一个效用函数所刻画，称为量级悖论。参与者的行为仿佛在运用一种启发式程序：未来奖励的价值由奖励的某个固定百分比（与延迟时长无关）加上一个依赖延迟时间的成分共同构成。

●损失厌恶是行为经济学中最稳健的发现之一，个体对损失的权衡权重通常约为等额收益的两倍。频繁暴露于损失的前景会加剧损失厌恶程度，损失厌恶也会随市场经验的增加而加剧。

●收入对健康评价具有积极影响；而当健康状况被评价为“极佳”或“极佳/良好”的复合类别时，收入对主观预期寿命并无统计上显著的影响。

※ 本期目录

●给我看标签：使用预助推减少卡路里信息回避

●规模悖论

●暴露于损失会加剧损失厌恶吗？来自竞争性行业的证据

●随机化偏好与次序公理的逆转

●对于主观预期寿命而言，哪个更重要：健康还是富有？

Show me the labels: Using pre-nudges to reduce calorie information avoidance

给我看标签：使用预助推减少卡路里信息回避

作者

Tabaré Capitán（瑞典农业科学大学），Linda Thunström（美国怀俄明大学），Klaas van ’t Veld（美国怀俄明大学），Jonas Nordström（瑞典农业科学大学），Jason F. Shogren（美国怀俄明大学）

摘要：Calorie labeling is a popular policy to address the obesity epidemic, but it has had little empirical success. Under the premise that willful avoidance of information plays a role in this result, we propose a novel approach—pre-nudges—to make consumers more receptive to calorie information. Unlike nudges, which are used to directly influence a choice, pre-nudges are used to directly influence how consumers react to the nudge itself (the calorie label). In line with predictions from our theoretical analysis, we test two pre-nudges in the context of menu labeling: one aims to increase self-efficacy, and the other one highlights the long-term health risks of overeating. In a large-scale laboratory experiment, we find that both pre-nudges reduce calorie information avoidance. Overall, our paper suggests a possible role for pre-nudges in addressing the obesity epidemic—one of the largest public health issues globally—and illustrates the potential usefulness of pre-nudges more generally.

卡路里标签是为应对肥胖流行而推行的一项普遍政策，但其实际成效甚微。基于有意回避信息对这一结果起了作用的假设，我们提出了一种新方法——预助推——以提高消费者对卡路里信息的接受度。与直接用于影响选择的助推不同，预助推旨在直接影响消费者对助推本身（即卡路里标签）的反应。与理论分析的预测一致，我们在菜单标签情境下测试了两种预助推策略：一种旨在提升自我效能感，另一种则强调暴饮暴食的长期健康风险。在一项大规模实验室实验中，我们发现两种预助推均能减少对卡路里信息的回避。总体而言，本文提示了预助推在应对肥胖流行（全球最大的公共健康问题之一）中的潜在作用，并更广泛地展示了预助推的实用性。

原文链接：https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11166-025-09471-9

The magnitude paradox

规模悖论

作者

Adrian Bruhin（瑞士洛桑大学），Helga Fehr-Duda（瑞士苏黎世大学），Sean Hofland &（瑞士苏黎世大学），Loukas Balafoutas（英国埃克塞特大学）

摘要：There is strong evidence indicating that relative risk aversion increases with outcome magnitude whereas impatience decreases with outcome magnitude. This finding seems paradoxical because it cannot be captured by the same utility function: Increasing relative risk aversion requires decreasing elasticity of the utility function, whereas decreasing impatience requires increasing elasticity with respect to outcome magnitudes. We develop a model that organically links the domains of risk taking and time discounting. The resulting two-speeds model generates a magnitude-dependent discount function such that increasing relative risk aversion is not only compatible with the magnitude effect in discounting but actually predicts magnitude-dependent discount weights. Moreover, we conduct a high-stakes laboratory experiment that reproduces the magnitude paradox and enables us to structurally estimate competing models of magnitude-dependent discounting. Both the Bayesian Information Criterion and the Akaike Information Criterion favor our two-speeds model. The results suggest that participants behave as if they apply a heuristic procedure: the value of a future reward consists of a certain percentage of the reward, irrespective of the length of delay, plus a delay-dependent component.

大量证据表明，相对风险厌恶会随结果量级的增大而增强，而不耐烦程度则随结果量级的增大而减弱。这一发现看似悖论，因为它无法被同一个效用函数所刻画：相对风险厌恶的增强要求效用函数的弹性递减，而不耐烦程度的减弱则要求效用函数随结果量级变化的弹性递增。我们构建了一个模型，将风险承担与时间贴现两个领域有机地联系起来。由此产生的“双速模型”生成了一个量级依赖的贴现函数，使得相对风险厌恶的增强不仅与贴现中的量级效应相容，而且实际上能够预测量级依赖的贴现权重。此外，我们开展了一项高stakes的实验室实验，成功复现了“量级悖论”，并使我们能够对多个竞争性的量级依赖贴现模型进行结构估计。无论是贝叶斯信息准则还是赤池信息准则，都更倾向于支持我们的双速模型。研究结果表明，参与者的行为仿佛在运用一种启发式程序：未来奖励的价值由奖励的某个固定百分比（与延迟时长无关）加上一个依赖延迟时间的成分共同构成。

原文链接：https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11166-026-09479-9

Does exposure to losses intensify loss aversion? Evidence from a competitive industry

暴露于损失会加剧损失厌恶吗？来自竞争性行业的证据

作者

Julian Emami Namini（荷兰伊拉斯姆斯经济学院），Sacha Kapoor（荷兰伊拉斯姆斯经济学院）

摘要：Loss aversion is one of the most robust findings in behavioral economics, with individuals typically weighing losses about twice as heavily as equivalent gains, and some even weighing losses many times more than equivalent gains. What drives these differences across individuals? Could it be that frequent exposure to the prospect of loss intensifies this bias? We examine this question in a competitive industry where decision-makers routinely face the prospect of losses that could threaten business survival. Using two distinct approaches, we find evidence of strong to extreme loss aversion. First, via thousands of real-time labor demand decisions from a retail chain and a discrete choice stopping model, we find a loss aversion coefficient 4.2 , rising to 9.5 on slow days with smaller management teams, while disappearing on busy days. Second, through structured interviews with business owners and managers, we document a mean loss aversion coefficient 10.1 and median 1.6 , with 74% having coefficients above 1 and 30% above 3. Importantly, loss aversion increases with market experience.

损失厌恶是行为经济学中最稳健的发现之一，个体对损失的权衡权重通常约为等额收益的两倍，有些人甚至将损失看得比等额收益重要数倍。是什么导致了这些个体间的差异？是否频繁暴露于损失的前景会加剧这种偏差？我们在一个决策者经常面临可能威胁企业生存的损失前景的竞争性行业中，对这一问题进行了考察。通过两种不同的方法，我们发现了从强烈到极端损失厌恶的证据。首先，利用来自一家零售连锁店的数千个实时劳动力需求决策数据和一个离散选择停止模型，我们发现损失厌恶系数为4.2；在管理团队较小、业务清淡的日子里，该系数上升至9.5，而在繁忙日子里则完全消失。其次，通过对企业主和管理人员的结构化访谈，我们记录到平均损失厌恶系数为10.1，中位数为1.6，其中74%的受访者系数高于1，30%高于3。重要的是，损失厌恶会随市场经验的增加而加剧。

原文链接：https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11166-025-09474-6

Randomization preference and the reversal of order axiom

随机化偏好与次序公理的逆转

作者

Evan M. Calford（澳大利亚国立大学）

摘要：This paper tests, experimentally, three different perspectives on the relationship between preferences for randomization and the timing of resolution of uncertainty in ambiguous environments. We consider the canonical Expected Utility model, where there is no preference for randomization, Raiffa’s (Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75(4), 690–694, 1961) model, where preference for randomization is independent of the timing of resolution of uncertainty, and modern theories from Ke and Zhang (Econometrica, 88(3), 1159–1195, 2020) and Saito (American Economic Review, 105(3), 1246–1271, 2015), where preference for randomization depends on the timing of resolution of uncertainty. Our experimental results show a strong preference for randomization, including substantial violations of first order stochastic dominance, but are not consistent with any of the theories considered.

本文通过实验检验了在模糊环境中，随机化偏好与不确定性解决时机之间关系的三种不同理论视角。我们考虑了以下三种模型：经典期望效用模型（该模型认为不存在随机化偏好）；Raiffa（1961）模型（该模型认为随机化偏好与不确定性解决时机无关）；以及Ke与Zhang（2020）和Saito（2015）提出的现代理论（这些理论认为随机化偏好依赖于不确定性解决时机）。我们的实验结果显示，被试表现出强烈的随机化偏好，包括大量违背一阶随机占优的行为，但这些结果与所考察的任何理论均不一致。

原文链接：https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11166-025-09473-7

What is more important for subjective longevity expectations: being healthy or rich?

对于主观预期寿命而言，哪个更重要：健康还是富有？

作者

V. Kerry Smith（美国亚利桑那州立大学）

摘要：This research considers the role of income for subjective longevity assessments using the 2022 Survey of Consumer Finances. Treating subjective health and longevity assessments as jointly determined is important to understanding the role of income for both judgments. Income has a positive effect on health judgments and does not have a statistically significant effect on subjective longevity when health is rated as excellent or in excellent or good composite. Using analysis from the Health and Retirement Survey together with the SCF indicated that surveys framing the longevity question in direct or probabilistic terms can be complementary in estimating subjective longevity.

本研究利用2022年消费者财务状况调查数据，考察了收入在主观预期寿命评估中的作用。将主观健康评估与主观预期寿命评估视为联合决定的变量，对于理解收入在这两种判断中的作用至关重要。收入对健康评价具有积极影响；而当健康状况被评价为“极佳”或“极佳/良好”的复合类别时，收入对主观预期寿命并无统计上显著的影响。结合健康与退休调查与消费者财务状况调查的分析表明，以直接问法或概率问法来设定预期寿命问题的不同调查，在估计主观预期寿命时可以互为补充。

原文链接：https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11166-026-09475-z