A decision theoretic model of the American war in Vietnam

This paper presents a decision theoretic model of the American side of the Vietnam war. That is, we only consider the U.S. government declared objectives and assign them utilities from that point of view. We assume that the involvement of the U.S. in this war was the outcome of a deliberate decision and, moreover, that this decision was taken on the basis of a careful weighing of goals and means. Hence decision theory is applicable in this case - and probably it was applied. We make hypotheses on the utilities of the goals and on those of the negative side effects. We also assess the probabilities of the four main possible courses of action available to achieve those goals: total war, advising, negotiating, and staying out. The total efficiencies of these turn out to be -0.30, -0.20, +0.51, and -0.11 respectively. This result explains why neutrality was not tried and why the advisory policy was eventually given up. But it does not explain why war, which has been not just inefficient but countereffective, was preferred over negotiating from the start or keeping neutral. Unless of course one assumes that the strategists either (a) paid no attention to any decision theoretic models or (b) used models that had fatal flaws. If the first alternative is discarded because of the prestige enjoyed by decision theory amongst American executives, we must conclude that the decision theoretic models employed by the U.S. high command had either of the following defects: (a) they ignored or underrated the negative side effects accompanying the implementation of every goal, or (b) they were not supplemented by mathematical models of the decisions likely to be made by the other side. In either case the decision to adopt the strategy with minimal expected utility was, at best, rational but extremely ill informed. It may have been one more victory of ideology over science.     

Decision theory with prospect interference and entanglement

We present a novel variant of decision making based on the mathematical theory of separable Hilbert spaces. This mathematical structure captures the effect of superposition of composite prospects, including many incorporated intentions, which allows us to describe a variety of interesting fallacies and anomalies that have been reported to particularize the decision making of real human beings. The theory characterizes entangled decision making, non-commutativity of subsequent decisions, and intention interference. We demonstrate how the violation of the Savage’s sure-thing principle, known as the disjunction effect, can be explained quantitatively as a result of the interference of intentions, when making decisions under uncertainty. The disjunction effects, observed in experiments, are accurately predicted using a theorem on interference alternation that we derive, which connects aversion-to-uncertainty to the appearance of negative interference terms suppressing the probability of actions. The conjunction fallacy is also explained by the presence of the interference terms. A series of experiments are analyzed and shown to be in excellent agreement with a priori evaluation of interference effects. The conjunction fallacy is also shown to be a sufficient condition for the disjunction effect, and novel experiments testing the combined interplay between the two effects are suggested.     

Risk seeking with diminishing marginal utility in a non-expected utility model

The present work takes place in the framework of a non-expected utility model under risk: the RDEU theory (Rank Dependent Expected Utility, first initiated by Quiggin under the denomination of Anticipated Utility), where the decision maker's behavior is characterized by two functionsu andf. Our first result gives a condition under which the functionu characterizes the decision maker's attitude towards wealth. Then, defining a decision maker as risk averter (respectively risk seeker) when he always prefers to any random variable its expected value (weak definition of risk aversion), the second result states that a decision maker who has an increasing marginal utility of wealth (a convex functionu) can be risk averse, if his functionf issufficiently below his functionu, hence if he is sufficientlypessimistic. Obviously, he can also be risk seeking with a diminishing marginal utility of wealth. This result is noteworthy because with a stronger definition of risk aversion/risk seeking, based on mean-preserving spreads, Chew, Karni, and Safra have shown that the only way to be risk averse (in their sense) in RDEU theory is to have, simultaneously, a concave functionu and a convex functionf.     

The implications of irreversibility in emergency response decisions

The irreversibility effect implies that a decision maker who neglects the prospect of receiving more complete information at later stages of a sequential decision problem will in certain cases too easily take an irreversible decision, as he ignores the existence of a positive option value in favour of reversible decisions. This option value represents the decision maker's flexibility to adapt subsequent decisions to the obtained information. In this paper we show that the economic models dealing with irreversibility as used in environmental and capital investment decision making can be extended to emergency response decisions that produce important irreversible effects. In particular, we concentrate on the decision whether or not to evacuate an industrial area threatened by a possible nuclear accident. We show in a simple two-period evacuation decision model that non-optimal conclusions may be drawn when evacuation is regarded as a `now or never decision'. The robustness of these results is verified by means of a sensitivity analysis of the various model parameters. The importance of `options thinking' in this decision context is illustrated in an example.     

Implementation without rationality assumptions

Hurwicz (Social Choice and public decision making. Essays in honor of Kenneth J. Arrow, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1986) was the first to study an approach to implementation theory based on choice functions instead of preference relations. We argue that the solution concept used by him, the generalized Nash equilibrium, is not really compatible with the idea that individual behavior is describable by a choice function. A new solution concept that better fits the choice function framework is then introduced. Using this, we investigate what behavioral assumptions are needed for the full characterizations of Nash implementable social choice correspondences to still hold. We will show that a condition known as Property α is central.     

Great Expectations. Part I: On the Customizability of Generalized Expected Utility

We propose a generalization of expected utility that we call generalized EU (GEU), where a decision maker’s beliefs are represented by plausibility measures and the decision maker’s tastes are represented by general (i.e., not necessarily real-valued) utility functions. We show that every agent, “rational” or not, can be modeled as a GEU maximizer. We then show that we can customize GEU by selectively imposing just the constraints we want. In particular, we show how each of Savage’s postulates corresponds to constraints on GEU.     

Domination structures and multicriteria problems in n-person games

Multiple criteria decision problems with one decision maker have been recognized and discussed in the recent literature in optimization theory, operations research and management science. The corresponding concept with n-decision makers, namely multicriteria n-person games, has not yet been extensively explored.In this paper we first demonstrate that existing solution concepts for single criterion n-person games in both normal form and characteristic function form induce domination structures (similar to those defined and studied by Yu [39] for multicriteria single decision maker problems) in various spaces, including the payoff space, the imputation space and the coalition space. This discussion provides an understanding of some underlying assumptions of the solution concepts and provides a basis for generalizing and generating new solution concepts not yet defined. Also we illustrate that domination structures may be regarded as a measure of power held by the players.We then illustrate that a multicriteria problem can naturally arise in decision situations involving (partial) conflict among n-persons. Using our discussion of solution concepts for single criterion games as a basis, various approaches for resolving both normal form and characteristic function form multicriteria n-person games are proposed. For multicriteria games in characteristic function form, we define a multicriteria core and show that there exists a single game point whose core is equal to the multicriteria core. If we reduce a multicriteria game to a single criterion game, domination structures which are more general than classical ones must be considered, otherwise some crucial information in the game may be lost. Finally, we discuss a parametrization process which, for a given multicriteria game, associates a single criterion game to each point in a parametric space. This parametrization provides a basis for the discussion of solution concepts in multicriteria n-person games.     

A Philosophical Foundation of Non-Additive Measure and Probability

In this paper, non-additivity of a set function is interpreted as a method to express relations between sets which are not modeled in a set theoretic way. Drawing upon a concept called “quasi-analysis” of the philosopher Rudolf Carnap, we introduce a transform for sets, functions, and set functions to formalize this idea. Any image-set under this transform can be interpreted as a class of (quasi-)components or (quasi-)properties representing the original set. We show that non-additive set functions can be represented as signed σ-additive measures defined on sets of quasi-components. We then use this interpretation to justify the use of non-additive set functions in various applications like for instance multi criteria decision making and cooperative game theory. Additionally, we show exemplarily by means of independence, conditioning, and products how concepts from classical measure and probability theory can be transfered to the non-additive theory via the transform.     

On the Onassis problem

A decision problem is by convention characterized by its outcome matrix and by a subsequent utility evaluation. In trying to set up an outcome matrix based on wealth values it may occur that due to ambiguities inherent in the decision problem it is not clear which standard of value (or numéraire) should be used in order to measure wealth. A typical example of this kind is Stützel's so called Onassis Paradox. We show that problems of this kind can be solved within the conventional framework of decision theory. The analysis proceeds in two steps. First, state-dependent utility functions are derived; second, a model for evaluating these utility functions is presented.     

Bayesian decision theory,rule utilitarianism,and Arrow's impossibility theorem

The first part of this paper reexamines the logical foundations of Bayesian decision theory and argues that the Bayesian criterion of expected-utility maximization is the only decision criterion consistent with rationality. On the other hand, the Bayesian criterion, together with the Pareto optimality requirement, inescapably entails a utilitarian theory of morality. The next sections discuss the role both of cardinal utility and of cardinal interpersonal comparisons of utility in ethics. It is shown that the utilitarian welfare function satisfies all of Arrow's social choice postulates avoiding the celebrated impossibility theorem by making use of information which is unavailable in Arrow's original framework. Finally, rule utilitarianism is contrasted with act utilitarianism and judged to be preferable for the purposes of ethical theory.     

Is specialization desirable in committee decision making?

Committee decision making is examined in this study focusing on the role assigned to the committee members. In particular, we are concerned about the comparison between committee performance under specialization and non-specialization of the decision makers. Specialization (in the context of project or public policy selection) means that the decision of each committee member is based on a narrow area, which typically results in the acquirement and use of relatively high expertise in that area. When the committee members’ expertise is already determined, specialization only means that the decision of each committee member is based solely on his/her relatively high expertise area. This form of specialization is potentially inferior relative to non-specialization under which the decision of each committee member is based on different areas, not just his/her relatively high expertise area. Given that the expertise of the committee members is already determined but unknown, our analysis focuses on non-specializing individuals whose decision is based on a decision rule that does not require information on the decision-making skills. Under these realistic assumptions, non-specialization is shown to be preferable over specialization, depending on the aggregation rule applied by the committee. The significance of our approach is not limited to the specific results that we obtain. Rather, it should be viewed as a first step toward a deeper examination of the role of individual decision makers in enhancing the performance of collective decision making.     

Causality in the logic of decision

In recent years there has been an active debate between proponents of two different models of rational decision. One model is evidential decision theory, which is characterized by the fact that it holds the principle of maximizing expected utility to be appropriate whenever the states are probabilistically independent of the acts. The other model, causal decision theory, holds that the principle of maximizing expected utility is appropriate whenever the states are causally independent of the acts. The proponents of evidential decision theory include Richard Jeffrey and Ellery Eells, who claim that evidential decision theory has significant advantages over causal decision theory. In this paper I discuss the two main advantages which have been claimed for evidential decision theory, and show that in fact evidential decision theory does not possess either of these advantages.     

The influence of probabilities on the response mode bias in utility elicitation

The response mode bias, in which subjects exhibit different risk attitudes when assessing certainty equivalents versus indifference probabilities, is a well-known phenomenon in the assessment of utility functions. In this empirical study, we develop and apply a cardinal measure of risk attitudes to analyze not only the existence, but also the strength of this phenomenon. Since probability levels involved in decision problems are already known to have a strong impact on behavior, we use this approach to study the impact of probabilities on the extent of the response mode bias. We find that the direction in which probabilities influence measured risk aversion is the opposite in the certainty equivalence (CE) method versus in the probability equivalence (PE) method. Utilizing the CE elicitation approach leads to an increase of risk seeking for gambles involving high probabilities. For the PE method, subjects tend to behave risk averse with gambles of high probabilities. This behavior is reversed in the gain domain. This “tailwhip” effect is consistently replicated in several experiments, involving both loss and gain domains of lotteries.     

Ambiguity,pessimism, and rational religious choice

Using a subclass of the α-maximin expected-utility preference model, in which the decision maker’s degree of ambiguity and degree of pessimism are each parameterized, we present a theory of religious choice in the Pascalian decision theory tradition, one that can resolve dilemmas, address the “many Gods objection,” and address the ambiguity inherent in religious choice. Parameterizing both the degree of ambiguity and the degree of pessimism allows one to examine how the two interact to impact choice, which is useful regardless of the application. Applying this model to religious choice is a move beyond subjective expected-utility theory, allowing us to show that a change in either the degree of ambiguity or the degree of pessimism can lead a decision maker to “convert” from one religion to another.     

Taste uncertainty and status quo effects in consumer choice

We use reference-dependent expected utility theory to develop a model of status quo effects in consumer choice. We hypothesise that, when making their decisions, individuals are uncertain about the utility that will be yielded by their consumption experiences in different ‘taste states’ of the world. If individuals have asymmetric attitudes to gains and losses of utility, the model entails acyclic reference-dependent preferences over consumption bundles. The model explains why status quo effects may vary substantially from one decision context to another and why some such effects may decay as individuals gain market experience.     

Convex stochastic dominance with finite consequence sets

Stochastic dominance is a notion in expected-utility decision theory which has been developed to facilitate the analysis of risky or uncertain decision alternatives when the full form of the decision maker's von Neumann-Morgenstern utility function on the consequence space X is not completely specified. For example, if f and g are probability functions on X which correspond to two risky alternatives, then f first-degree stochastically dominates g if, for every consequence x in X, the chance of getting a consequence that is preferred to x is as great under f as under g. When this is true, the expected utility of f must be as great as the expected utility of g.Most work in stochastic dominance has been based on increasing utility functions on X with X an interval on the real line. The present paper, following [1], formulates appropriate notions of first-degree and second-degree stochastic dominance when X is an arbitrary finite set. The only structure imposed on X arises from the decision maker's preferences. It is shown how typical analyses with stochastic dominance can be enriched by applying the notion to convex combinations of probability functions. The potential applications of convex stochastic dominance include analyses of simple-majority voting on risky alternatives when voters have similar preference orders on the consequences.     

Decision analysis using lottery-dependent utility

In this article we show how the lottery-dependent expected utility (LDEU) model can be used in decision analysis. The LDEU model is an extension of the classical expected utility (EU) model and yet permits preference patterns that are infeasible in the EU model. We propose a framework for constructing decision trees in a particular way that permits us to use the principle of optimality and thus the divide and conquer strategy for analyzing complex problems using the LDEU model. Our approach may be applicable to some other nonlinear utility models as well. The result is that, if desired, decision analysis can be conducted without assuming the restrictive substitution principle/independence axiom.     

Indecisiveness aversion and preference for commitment

We present an axiomatic model of preferences over menus that is motivated by three assumptions. First, the decision maker is uncertain ex ante (i.e., at the time of choosing a menu) about her ex post (i.e., at the time of choosing an option within her chosen menu) preferences over options, and she anticipates that this subjective uncertainty will not resolve before the ex post stage. Second, she is averse to ex post indecisiveness (i.e., to having to choose between options that she cannot rank with certainty). Third, when evaluating a menu she discards options that are dominated (i.e., inferior to another option whatever her ex post preferences may be) and restricts attention to the undominated ones. Under these assumptions, the decision maker has a preference for commitment in the sense of preferring menus with fewer undominated alternatives. We derive a representation in which the decision maker’s uncertainty about her ex post preferences is captured by means of a subjective state space, which in turn determines which options are undominated in a given menu, and in which the decision maker fears, whenever indecisive, to choose an option that will turn out to be the worst (undominated) one according to the realization of her ex post preferences.     

Embedded choices

In this article, we present a contextually embedded choice theory. Using concepts and tools of poset mathematics, we show how to include in rational choice theory cultural and social effects. Specifically, we define some choice superstructures, seen as choice set transformations imposed by cultural and social norms. As we shall argue, these transformations can be of help to explain choice behavior within different contexts. Moreover, we show that, once choice superstructures are taken into account, some well-known results about maximizing and optimizing behavior are easily confirmed and some insights on intransitive choices may be phased out.     

On the Application of Multiattribute Utility Theory to Models of Choice

Ellsberg (The Quarterly Journal of Economics 75, 643–669 (1961); Risk, Ambiguity and Decision, Garland Publishing (2001)) argued that uncertainty is not reducible to risk. At the center of Ellsberg’s argument lies a thought experiment that has come to be known as the three-color example. It has been observed that a significant number of sophisticated decision makers violate the requirements of subjective expected utility theory when they are confronted with Ellsberg’s three-color example. More generally, such decision makers are in conflict with either the ordering assumption or the independence assumption of subjective expected utility theory. While a clear majority of the theoretical responses to these violations have advocated maintaining ordering while relaxing independence, a persistent minority has advocated abandoning the ordering assumption. The purpose of this paper is to consider a similar dilemma that exists within the context of multiattribute models, where it arises by considering indeterminacy in the weighting of attributes rather than indeterminacy in the determination of probabilities as in Ellsberg’s example.