Ellsberg paradox: Ambiguity and complexity aversions compared

We present a simple model where preferences with complexity aversion, rather than ambiguity aversion, resolve the Ellsberg paradox. We test our theory using laboratory experiments where subjects choose among lotteries that “range” from a simple risky lottery, through risky but more complex lotteries, to one similar to Ellsberg’s ambiguity urn. Our model ranks lotteries according to their complexity and makes different—at times contrasting—predictions than most models of ambiguity in response to manipulations of prizes. The results support that complexity aversion preferences play an important and separate role from beliefs with ambiguity aversion in explaining behavior under uncertainty.     

When Allais meets Ulysses: Dynamic axioms and the common ratio effect

We report experimental findings about subjects’ behavior in dynamic decision problems involving multistage lotteries with different timings of resolution of uncertainty. Our within-subject design allows us to study violations of the independence and dynamic axioms: Dynamic Consistency, Consequentialism and Reduction of Compound Lotteries. We investigate the effects of changes in probability and outcome levels on the pattern of choices observed in the Common Ratio Effect (CRE) and in the Reverse Common Ratio Effect (RCRE) and on their dynamic counterparts. We find that the probability level plays an important role in violations of Reduction of Compound Lottery and Dynamic Consistency and the outcomes levels in violations of Consequentialism. Moreover, more than one quarter of our subjects satisfy the Independence axiom but violate two dynamic axioms. We thus suggest that there is a greater dissociation that might have been expected between preferences captured by dynamic axioms and those observed over single-stage lotteries.     

Reconsidering the common ratio effect: the roles of compound independence,reduction, and coalescing

Common ratio effects should be ruled out if subjects’ preferences satisfy compound independence, reduction of compound lotteries, and coalescing. In other words, at least one of these axioms should be violated in order to generate a common ratio effect. Relying on a simple experiment, we investigate which failure of these axioms is concomitant with the empirical observation of common ratio effects. We observe that compound independence and reduction of compound lotteries hold, whereas coalescing is systematically violated. This result provides support for theories which explain the common ratio effect by violations of coalescing (i.e., configural weight theory) instead of violations of compound independence (i.e., rank-dependent utility or cumulative prospect theory).     

Expected discounted utility

Standard axioms of additively separable utility for choice over time and classic axioms of expected utility theory for choice under risk yield a generalized expected additively separable utility representation of risk-time preferences over probability distributions over sure streams of intertemporal outcomes. A dual approach is to use the analogues of the same axioms in a reversed order to obtain a generalized additively separable expected utility representation of time–risk preferences over intertemporal streams of probability distributions over sure outcomes. The paper proposes an additional axiom, which is called risk-time reversal, for obtaining a special case of the two representations—expected discounted utility. The axiom of risk-time reversal postulates that if a risky lottery over streams of sure intertemporal outcomes and an intertemporal stream of risky lotteries yield the same probability distribution of possible outcomes in every point in time then a decision-maker is indifferent between the two. This axiom is similar to assumption 2 “reversal of order in compound lotteries” in Anscombe and Aumann (Ann Math Stat 34(1):199–205, 1963, p. 201).

     

Signed orders in linear and nonlinear utility theory

Self-reflecting signed orders on a set A and its anti-set A ^* were introduced previously as a way to account for negative as well as positive feelings about the inclusion of items in A in potential subsets of choice. The present paper extends the notion of signed orders to lotteries on A A ^*, describes reflection axioms for the lottery context, and shows how these axioms simplify utility representations for preference between lotteries. The simplified representations are then used to guide procedures for extending preferences from A A ^* and its lotteries to preferences between subsets of items.     

A Rule For Updating Ambiguous Beliefs

When preferences are such that there is no unique additive prior, the issue of which updating rule to use is of extreme importance. This paper presents an axiomatization of the rule which requires updating of all the priors by Bayes rule. The decision maker has conditional preferences over acts. It is assumed that preferences over acts conditional on event E happening, do not depend on lotteries received on E ^c, obey axioms which lead to maxmin expected utility representation with multiple priors, and have common induced preferences over lotteries. The paper shows that when all priors give positive probability to an event E, a certain coherence property between conditional and unconditional preferences is satisfied if and only if the set of subjective probability measures considered by the agent given E is obtained by updating all subjective prior probability measures using Bayes rule.     

Equivalent comparisons of information channels

This article constructs a static model of information acquisition when the agent does not know exactly what pieces of information he is missing. A representation of preferences over information channels and menus of lotteries is shown by adapting the model of unforeseen contingencies by Dekel et al. (Econometrica 69:891–934, 2001; Econometrica 75:591–600, 2007), which is an extension of Kreps (Econometrica 47:565–576, 1979; Economic analysis of markets and games: essays in honor of Frank Hahn, 1992). Also, characterisation of informativeness of an information channel analogous to the one by Blackwell (Ann Math Stud 24:265–272, 1953) is examined in conjunction with the preference for flexibility by applying the structure of Shapley value.     

On the Representation of Beliefs by Probabilities

This paper explores two axiomatic structures of subjective expected utility assuming a finite state-space and state-dependent, connected, topological outcome-spaces. Building on the work of Karni and Schmeidler (1981) the analytical framework includes, in addition to the preference relation on acts, introspective preferences on hypothetical lotteries that are linked to the preference relation on acts by consistency axioms. The two models accommodate state-dependent preferences and yield subjective probabilities that correctly represent the decision-maker's beliefs. State-independent preferences are a special case.     

On the Representation of Incomplete Preferences Over Risky Alternatives

We study preferences over lotteries which do not necessarily satisfy completeness. We provide a characterization which generalizes Expected Utility theory. We show in particular that various sure-thing axioms are needed to guaranteee the representability in terms of utility intervals rather than numbers, and to provide a linear interval order representation which is very much in the spirit of Expected Utility theory.     

A variational model of preference under uncertainty

A familiar example devised by Daniel Ellsberg to highlight the effects of event ambiguity on preferences is transformed to separate aleatory uncertainty (chance) from epistemic uncertainty. The transformation leads to a lottery acts model whose states involve epistemic uncertainty; aleatory uncertainty enters into the statedependent lotteries. The model proposes von Neumann-Morgenstern utility for lotteries, additive subjective probability for states, and the use of across-states standard deviation weighted by a coefficient of aversion to variability to account for departures from Anscombe-Aumann subjective expected utility. Properties of the model are investigated and a partial axiomatization is provided.     

Strategic games with security and potential level players

This paper examines the existence of strategic solutions to finite normal form games under the assumption that strategy choices can be described as choices among lotteries where players have security- and potential level preferences over lotteries (e.g., Cohen, Theory and Decision, 33, 101–104, 1992, Gilboa, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 32, 405–420, 1988, Jaffray, Theory and Decision, 24, 169–200, 1988). Since security- and potential level preferences require discontinuous utility representations, standard existence results for Nash equilibria in mixed strategies (Nash, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 36, 48–49, 1950a, Non-Cooperative Games, Ph.D. Dissertation, Princeton University Press, 1950b) or for equilibria in beliefs (Crawford, Journal of Economic Theory, 50, 127–154, 1990) do not apply. As a key insight this paper proves that non-existence of equilibria in beliefs, and therefore non-existence of Nash equilibria in mixed strategies, is possible in finite games with security- and potential level players. But, as this paper also shows, rationalizable strategies (Bernheim, Econometrica, 52, 1007–1028, 1984, Moulin, Mathematical Social Sciences, 7, 83–102, 1984, Pearce, Econometrica, 52, 1029–1050, 1984) exist for such games. Rationalizability rather than equilibrium in beliefs therefore appears to be a more favorable solution concept for games with security- and potential level players.      

Preferences and decision errors in the winner’s curse

The problem of asymmetric information causes a winner’s curse in many environments. Given many unsuccessful attempts to eliminate it, we hypothesize that some people ‘prefer’ the lotteries underlying the winner’s curse. Study 1 shows that after removing the hypothesized cause of error, asymmetric information, half the subjects still prefer winner’s curse lotteries, implying past efforts to de-bias the winner’s curse may have been more successful than previously recognized since subjects prefer these lotteries. Study 2 shows risk-seeking preferences only partially explain lottery preferences, while non-monetary sources of utility may explain the rest. Study 2 suggests lottery preferences are not independent of context, and offers methods to reduce the winner’s curse.

The measure representation: A correction

Wakker (1991) and Puppe (1990) point out a mistake in theorem 1 in Segal (1989). This theorem deals with representing preference relations over lotteries by the measure of their epigraphs. An error in the theorem is that it gives wrong conditions concerning the continuity of the measure. This article corrects the error. Another problem is that the axioms do not imply that the measure is bounded; therefore, the measure representation applies only to subsets of the space of lotteries, although these subsets can become arbitrarily close to the whole space of lotteries. Some additional axioms (Segal, 1989, 1990) implying that the measure is a product measure (and hence anticipated utility) also guarantee that the measure is bounded.     

Even-chance lotteries in social choice theory

This paper discusses aspects of the theory of social choice when a nonempty choice set is to be determined for each situation, which consists of a feasible set of alternatives and a preference order for each voter on the set of nonempty subsets of alternatives. The individual preference assumptions include ordering properties and averaging conditions, the latter of which are motivated by the interpretation that subset A is preferred to subset B if and only if the individual prefers an even-chance lottery over the basic alternatives in A to an even-chance lottery over the basic alternatives in B. Corresponding to this interpretation, a choice set with two or more alternatives is resolved by an even-chance lottery over these alternatives. Thus, from the traditional no-lottery social choice theory viewpoint, ties are resolved by even-chance lotteries on the tied alternatives. Compared to the approach which allows all lotteries to compete along with the basic alternatives, the present approach is a contraction which allows only even-chance lotteries.After discussing individual preference axioms, the paper examines Pareto optimality for nonempty subsets of a feasible set in a social choice context with n voters. Aspects of simple-majority comparisons in the even-chance context follow, including an analysis of single-peaked preferences. The paper concludes with an Arrowian type impossibility theorem that is designed for the even-chance setting.     

Stochastic Choice and Consistency in Decision Making Under Risk: An Experimental Study

This paper reports the results of an experiment designed to uncover the stochastic structure of individual preferences over lotteries. Unlike previous experiments, which have presented subjects with pair-wise choices between lotteries, our design allowed subjects to choose between two lotteries or (virtually) any convex combination of the two lotteries. We interpret the mixtures of lotteries chosen by subjects as a measure of the stochastic structure of choice. We test between two alternative interpretations of stochastic choice: the random utility interpretation and the deterministic preferences interpretation. The main findings of the experiment are that the typical subject prefers mixtures of lotteries rather than the extremes of a linear lottery choice set. The distribution of choices does not change between a first and second asking of the same question. We argue that this provides support for the deterministic preferences interpretation over the random utility interpretation of stochastic choice. As a subsidiary result, we find a small proportion of subjects make choices that violate transitivity, but the level of intransitive choice falls significantly over time.     

Jaffray’s ideas on ambiguity

This paper discusses Jean-Yves Jaffray’s ideas on ambiguity and the views underlying his ideas. His models, developed 20 years ago, provide the most tractable separation of risk attitudes, ambiguity attitudes, and ambiguity beliefs available in the literature today.     

Interval scalability of rank-dependent utility

Luce and Narens (Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 29:1–72, 1985) showed that rank-dependent utility (RDU) is the most general interval scale utility model for binary lotteries. It can be easily established that this result cannot be generalized to lotteries with more than two outcomes. This article suggests several additional conditions to ensure RDU as the only utility model with the desired property of interval scalability in the general case. The related axiomatizations of some special cases of RDU of independent interest (the quantile utility, expected utility, and Yaari’s dual expected utility) are also given.     

A model of consumption-dependent temptation

The paper characterizes axiomatically a class of temptation-driven preferences. The key (but not the only) novelty of the paper is the idea that the alternative which tempts when an item x is consumed may not be the same as the alternative which tempts when another item y is consumed. For any single item to be ultimately consumed, the other items can be ranked by how much they tempt. An individual contemplates, as an alternative consumption, only the item that tempts most. The utility of a menu is then equal to the utility of the item that is consumed less a (psychological) cost of resisting temptation; this cost depends on both: the item to be consumed and the item that tempts. Unlike most of the existing literature, the axioms are imposed on deterministic menus, not on menus of lotteries.     

Ambiguity aversion in the small and in the large for weighted linear utility

The widely observed preference for lotteries involving precise rather than vague of ambiguous probabilities is called ambiguity aversion. Ambiguity aversion cannot be predicted or explained by conventional expected utility models. For the subjectively weighted linear utility (SWLU) model, we define both probability and payoff premiums for ambiguity, and introduce alocal ambiguity aversion function a(u) that is proportional to these ambiguity premiums for small uncertainties. We show that one individual's ambiguity premiums areglobally larger than another's if and only if hisa(u) function is everywhere larger. Ambiguity aversion has been observed to increase 1) when the mean probability of gain increases and 2) when the mean probability of loss decreases. We show that such behavior is equivalent toa(u) increasing in both the gain and loss domains. Increasing ambiguity aversion also explains the observed excess of sellers' over buyers' prices for insurance against an ambiguous probability of loss.     

Choice procedure consistent with similarity relations

We deal with the approach, initiated by Rubinstein, which assumes that people, when evaluating pairs of lotteries, use similarity relations. We interpret these relations as a way of modelling the imperfect powers of discrimination of the human mind and study the relationship between preferences and similarities. The class of both preferences and similarities that we deal with is larger than that considered by Rubinstein. The extension is made because we do not want to restrict ourselves to lottery spaces. Thus, under the above interpretation of a similarity, we find that some of the axioms imposed by Rubinstein are not justified if we want to consider other fields of choice theory. We show that any preference consistent with a pair of similarities is monotone on a subset of the choice space. We establish the implication upon the similarities of the requirement of making indifferent alternatives with a component which is zero. Furthermore, we show that Rubinstein's general results can also be obtained in this larger class of both preferences and similarity relations.The nontransitiveness of indifference must be recognized and explained on any theory of choice and the only explanation that seems to work is based on the imperfect powers of discrimination of the human mind whereby inequality becomes recognizable only when of sufficient magnitude.