Correction to: Resolving Zeckhauser’s paradox

1 Correction to: Theory and Decision (2020) 88:595–607 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-019-09740-5

On page 599 in the original publication of the article, we state that

$$ \begin{aligned} u(A^{*} x_{10} ) > u(A^{*} x_{51} ) \hfill \\ u(A^{*} x_{21} ) > u(A^{*} x_{52} ) \hfill \\ u(A^{*} x_{32} ) > u(A^{*} x_{53} ) \hfill \\ u(A^{*} x_{43} ) > u(A^{*} x_{54} ) \hfill \\ \end{aligned} $$

This is a typo: the inequality sign is incorrect. For example, according to Preference P1, $x_{10} > x_{51}$. So $A^{*} x_{10}$ means being alive with a larger debt than in $A^{*} x_{51}$. So, by Preference P2, $u(A^{*} x_{51} ) > u(A^{*} x_{10} )$. The same argument should hold for the other inequalities. So, we should have:

$$ \begin{aligned} u(A^{*} x_{10} ) < u(A^{*} x_{51} ) \hfill \\ u(A^{*} x_{21} ) < u(A^{*} x_{52} ) \hfill \\ u(A^{*} x_{32} ) < u(A^{*} x_{53} ) \hfill \\ u(A^{*} x_{43} ) < u(A^{*} x_{54} ) \hfill \\ \end{aligned} $$

The specific utilities in the paper were constructed using these correct inequalities, so there is nothing wrong in the numbers. We apologize for any confusions from this typo.