In short, there are three types of people: risk-averse, risk-neutral, and risk-preferring. (In the general case, people can exhibit all three types of behavior at different income levels, but let's keep things simple).
Imagine a graph, with income on the x-axis and utility on the y-axis. A risk-averse person will have a concave utility function (like a square-root function), whereas a risk-netural and risk-preferring person would have a straight-line and a convex utility function, respectively.
You have two income levels: $0 and $1000. Now take the two points (0, U(0)) and (1000, U(1000)) and connect them with a straight line. Since we're dealing with a 90% chance = .9 probability, find the point on that line which is 90% of the way between the two points (closer to the second point). This point represents the utility received from the risky situation, or the expected utility. This is not the same thing as the utility of the expected value! Call this point A, with coordinates (Ax and Ay)
Compare U(Ax) this with the value U($900).
For a risk-neutral person, the two values will be exactly the same, as the utility function is a straight line. For a risk-averse person, the second value will be higher, as the utility function is concave with respect to the origin. For a risk-preferring person, the first value will be higher, as the utility function is convex with respect to the origin.
In practice, the utility function may not have a constant concavity, which explains why people buy insurance (which is only justified under risk-averse behavior) yet also buy lottery tickets or gamble at casinos (which is only justified under risk-preferring behavior).
> Who in their right mind would take the choice that could possibly leave them without a life-changing sum the next day?
As you can see, the answer to your question is, 'A person who is risk-preferring' (or operating under risk-preferring situations which are quite common in practice).
Distinguishing between risk-averse/neutral/preferring seems like begging the question to me. Couldn't there be an objective answer to which of three behaviors is the most rational in some situation?
the term "rational" for economists has a very specific meaning. an actor behaving "rationally" has a utility function that satisfies some set of properties, and when confronted with choices, chooses in a way that maximizes that utility function.
Right but which metric is reasonable can (and I believe should) change with scale. I'm risk-preferring when it comes to small amounts -- opportunities to make such decisions come up all the time, so I'll be likely to realize the mean. But I'm risk-averse when it comes to large amounts -- I may only get to make one such decision in my life. Better to minimize the variance here.
This not only explains why people play lottery and buy insurance (playing the lottery non-compulsively involves risking only small amounts of money; not having insurance involves risking large amounts of money), but it also explains why those close to retirement should have risk-averse portfolios, while the young should have risk-preferring portfolios (those close to retirement have few "samples" left to take as it were).
They don't: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_utility
In short, there are three types of people: risk-averse, risk-neutral, and risk-preferring. (In the general case, people can exhibit all three types of behavior at different income levels, but let's keep things simple).
Imagine a graph, with income on the x-axis and utility on the y-axis. A risk-averse person will have a concave utility function (like a square-root function), whereas a risk-netural and risk-preferring person would have a straight-line and a convex utility function, respectively.
You have two income levels: $0 and $1000. Now take the two points (0, U(0)) and (1000, U(1000)) and connect them with a straight line. Since we're dealing with a 90% chance = .9 probability, find the point on that line which is 90% of the way between the two points (closer to the second point). This point represents the utility received from the risky situation, or the expected utility. This is not the same thing as the utility of the expected value! Call this point A, with coordinates (Ax and Ay)
Compare U(Ax) this with the value U($900).
For a risk-neutral person, the two values will be exactly the same, as the utility function is a straight line. For a risk-averse person, the second value will be higher, as the utility function is concave with respect to the origin. For a risk-preferring person, the first value will be higher, as the utility function is convex with respect to the origin.
In practice, the utility function may not have a constant concavity, which explains why people buy insurance (which is only justified under risk-averse behavior) yet also buy lottery tickets or gamble at casinos (which is only justified under risk-preferring behavior).
> Who in their right mind would take the choice that could possibly leave them without a life-changing sum the next day?
As you can see, the answer to your question is, 'A person who is risk-preferring' (or operating under risk-preferring situations which are quite common in practice).