  In economics, risk aversion is modeled via a concave Bernoulli utility within
the expected-utility paradigm. We propose a simple test of expected utility and
concavity. We find little support for either: only 30 percent of the choices
are consistent with a concave utility, only two out of 72 subjects are
consistent with expected utility, and only one of them fits the economic model
of risk aversion. Our findings contrast with the preponderance of seemingly
"risk-averse" choices that have been elicited using the popular multiple-price
list methodology, a result we replicate in this paper. We demonstrate that this
methodology is unfit to measure risk aversion, and that the high prevalence of
risk aversion it produces is due to parametric misspecification.
