Reassessing the Testing of Generic Utility Models for Mixed Gambles

Miyamoto's generic utility theory (GUT) is a bilinear form that captures a diverse set of utility formulations. The present study, using mixed gambles, experimentally evaluates GUT in a fashion similar to the Chechile and Cooke and the Chechile and Butler studies, but employs a novel method of analysis. The reasons for the new method is to solve a fundamental flaw with the regression approacch used in the earlier experiments and to solve a problem of model overfit. Several participants from the earlier Chechile and Butler experiment are now recognized as being consistent with the GUT representation, but many are not. A new experiment, with actual economic consequences for the participants, does not support GUT. Suggestions are provided for subsequent research studies assessing the GUT class of models.     

Is “Generic Utility Theory” a Suitable Theory of Choice Behavior for Gambles with Mixed Gains and Losses?

Miyamoto's (1988, 1992) generic utility theory (GUT) subsumes a broad class of bilinear utility models. Chechile and Cooke (1997) tested the GUT class of models and found model failure due to the systematic variation of a parameter that should be a positive constant across a range of contexts. In the current study, an improved experimental design is employed to evaluate utility theory. The current study provides further evidence against the GUT class of models for mixed gambles. Moreover, evidence is also provided to demonstrate individual behavior that is incompatible with a coherent bilinear utility theory of choice behavior in the context of mixed gambles with gains and losses.     

Anxiety and Decision Making with Delayed Resolution of Uncertainty

In many real-world gambles, a non-trivial amount of time passes before the uncertainty is resolved but after a choice is made. An individual may have a preference between gambles with identical probability distributions over final outcomes if they differ in the timing of resolution of uncertainty. In this domain, utility consists not only of the consumption of outcomes, but also the psychological utility induced by an unresolved gamble. We term this utility anxiety. Since a reflective decision maker may want to include anxiety explicitly in analysis of unresolved lotteries, a multiple-outcome model for evaluating lotteries with delayed resolution of uncertainty is developed. The result is a rank-dependent utility representation (e.g., Quiggin, 1982), in which period weighting functions are related iteratively. Substitution rules are proposed for evaluating compound temporal lotteries. The representation is appealing for a number of reasons. First, probability weights can be interpreted as the cognitive attention allocated to certain outcomes. Second, the model disaggregates strength of preference from temporal risk aversion and thus provides some insight into the old debate about the relationship between von Neumann–Morgenstern utility functions and strength of preference value functions.     

On Elements of Chance

One aspect of the utility of gambling may evidence itself in failures of idempotence, i.e., when all chance outcomes give rise to the same consequence the `gamble' may not be indifferent to its common consequence. Under the assumption of segregation, such gambles can be expressed as the joint receipt of the common consequence and what we call `an element of chance', namely, the same gamble with the common consequence replaced by the status quo. Generalizing, any gamble is indifferent to the joint receipt of its element of chance and a certain consequence, which is called the `kernel equivalent' of the gamble. Under idempotence, the kernel equivalent equals the certainty equivalent. Conditions are reported (Theorem 4) that are sufficient for the kernel equivalents to have the kind of utility representation first discussed by Luce and Fishburn (1991), including being idempotent. This utility representation of the kernel equivalents together with the derived form of utility over joint receipts yields a utility representation of the original structure. Possible forms for the utility of an element of chance are developed.     

Lottery-Dependent Utility via Stochastic Benchmarking

The possibility to interpret expected and nonexpected utility theories in purely probabilistic terms has been recently investigated. Such interpretation proposes as guideline for the Decision Maker the comparison of random variables through their probability to outperform a stochastic benchmark. We apply this type of analysis to the model of Becker and Sarin, showing that their utility functional may be seen as the probability that an opportune random variable, depending on the one to be evaluated, does not outperform a non-random benchmark. Further, the consequent choice criterion is equivalent to a sort of probability of ruin. Possible interpretations and financial examples are discussed.     

Ranked-Weighted Utilities and Qualitative Convolution

For gambles—non-numerical consequences attached to uncertain chance events—analogues are proposed for the sum of independent random variables and their convolution. Joint receipt of gambles is the analogue of the sum of random variables. Because it has no unique expansion as a first-order gamble analogous to convolution, a definition of qualitative convolution is proposed. Assuming ranked, weighted-utility representations (RWU) over gains (and, separately, over losses, but not mixtures of both), conditions are given for the equivalence of joint receipt, qualitative convolution, and a utility expression like expected value. As background, some properties of RWU are developed.     

Comparing risk preferences over financial and environmental lotteries

This paper investigates whether preferences over environmental risks are best modeled using probability-weighted utility functions or can be reasonably approximated by expected utility (EU) or subjective EU models as is typically assumed. I elicit risk attitudes in the financial and environmental domains using multiple-price list experiment. I examine how subjects?? behavioral, attitudinal, and demographic characteristics affect their probability weighting functions first for financial risks, then for oil-spill risks. I find that most subjects tend to overweight extreme positive outcomes relative to expected utility in both the environmental and financial domains. Subjects are more likely to overemphasize low probability, extreme environmental outcomes than low probability, extreme financial outcomes, leading subjects to offer more support for mitigating environmental gambles than financial gambles with the same odds and equivalent outcomes. I conclude that EU models are likely to underestimate subjects?? willingness to pay for environmental cleanup programs or policies with uncertain outcomes.     

Revealed Preference and Expected Utility

This essay gives necessary and sufficient conditions for recovering expected utility from choice behavior in several popular models of uncertainty. In particular, these techniques handle a finite state model; a model for which the choice space consists of probability densities and the expected utility representation requires bounded, measurable utility; and a model for which the choice space consists of Borel probability measures and the expected utility representation requires bounded, continuous utility. The key result is the identification of the continuity condition necessary for the revelation of linear utility.     

It is Whether You Win or Lose: The Importance of the Overall Probabilities of Winning or Losing in Risky Choice

Imagine that you own a five-outcome gamble with the following payoffs and probabilities: ($100, .20; $50, .20; Imagine that you own a five-outcome gamble with the following payoffs and probabilities: ($100, .20; $50, .20; $0, .20; –$25, .20; –$50, .20). What happens when the opportunity to improve such a gamble is provided by a manipulation that adds value to one outcome versus another outcome, particularly when the opportunity to add value to one outcome versus another outcome changes the overall probability of a gain or the overall probability of a loss? Such a choice provides a simple test of the expected utility model (EU), original prospect theory (OPT), and cumulative prospect theory (CPT). A study of risky choices involving 375 respondents indicates that respondents were most sensitive to changes in outcome values that either increased the overall probability of a strict gain or decreased the overall probability of a strict loss. These results indicate more support for OPT rather than CPT and EU under various assumptions about the shape of the utility and value and weighting functions. Most importantly, the main difference between the various expectation models of risky choice occurs for outcomes near the reference value. A second study of risky choice involving 151 respondents again demonstrated the sensitivity of subjects to reducing the probability of a strict loss even at the cost of reduced expected value. Consequently, we argue that theories of how people choose among gambles that involve three or more consequences with both gains and losses need to include measures of the overall probabilities of a gain and of a loss.JEL Classification  D81     

Preference towards control in risk taking: Control,no control,or randomize?

This paper experimentally investigates preference towards different methods of control in risk taking. Participants are asked to choose between different ways for choosing which numbers to bet on for a gamble. They can choose the numbers themselves (control), let the experimenter choose (no control), or randomize. Classical economic theories predict indifference among the three methods. I found that participants exhibit strict preference for control, preference for no control, and preference for randomization. These preferences are robust as participants are willing to pay a small amount of money to implement their preferred method. Most participants believe that the winning probability under different methods is the same. This result contributes to the literature by clarifying that for most participants who exhibit preference for control, their preference is not due to illusion of control, but by source preference. Participants invest less in the risky gamble when they are not offered their preferred method.     

Subjective Probability Weighting and the Discovered Preference Hypothesis

Numerous studies have convincingly shown that prospect theory can better describe risky choice behavior than the classical expected utility model because it makes the plausible assumption that risk aversion is driven not only by the degree of sensitivity toward outcomes, but also by the degree of sensitivity toward probabilities. This article presents the results of an experiment aimed at testing whether agents become more sensitive toward probabilities over time when they repeatedly face similar decisions, receive feedback on the consequences of their decisions, and are given ample incentives to reflect on their decisions, as predicted by Plott’s Discovered Preference Hypothesis (DPH). The results of a laboratory experiment with N = 62 participants support this hypothesis. The elicited subjective probability weighting function converges significantly toward linearity when respondents are asked to make repeated choices and are given direct feedback after each choice. Such convergence to linearity is absent in an experimental treatment where respondents are asked to make repeated choices but do not experience the resolution of risk directly after each choice, as predicted by the DPH. I thank Peter P. Wakker for useful comments and suggestions.     

Empirical evidence of two-attribute utility dependence on probability

We investigate utility dependence on probability using a new methodology that examines how indifference statements vary with the probability of obtaining times and costs of individual trips. Of 127 subjects, 8 supplied 3 (out of 3) sets of indifference statements consistent with probability independence. Those subjects with 2 or more sets of indifference statements violating probability independence exhibited a systematic dependence, in that knowing the direction of a subject's violation in one set of indifference statements would increase the likelihood of his or her violating other sets of indifference statements in the same direction. Data show that this systematic violation of dependence should not be attributed to artifacts of the experiment.     

Expected utility without utility

This paper advances an interpretation of Von Neumann-Morgenstern's expected utility model for preferences over lotteries which does not require the notion of a cardinal utility over prizes and can be phrased entirely in the language of probability. According to it, the expected utility of a lottery can be read as the probability that this lottery outperforms another given independent lottery. The implications of this interpretation for some topics and models in decision theory are considered.     

Separating marginal utility and probabilistic risk aversion

This paper is motivated by the search for one cardinal utility for decisions under risk, welfare evaluations, and other contexts. This cardinal utility should have meaningprior to risk, with risk depending on cardinal utility, not the other way around. The rank-dependent utility model can reconcile such a view on utility with the position that risk attitude consists of more than marginal utility, by providing a separate risk component: a probabilistic risk attitude towards probability mixtures of lotteries, modeled through a transformation for cumulative probabilities. While this separation of risk attitude into two independent components is the characteristic feature of rank-dependent utility, it had not yet been axiomatized. Doing that is the purpose of this paper. Therefore, in the second part, the paper extends Yaari's axiomatization to nonlinear utility, and provides separate axiomatizations for increasing/decreasing marginal utility and for optimistic/pessimistic probability transformations. This is generalized to interpersonal comparability. It is also shown that two elementary and often-discussed properties — quasi-convexity (aversion) of preferences with respect to probability mixtures, and convexity (pessimism) of the probability transformation — are equivalent.     

Revealed preference and linear utility

We study a Linear Axiom of Revealed Preference (LARP) that characterizes the consistency of a choice function with respect to a preference order satisfying the independence axiom. In addition, LARP characterizes lexicographic linear utility rationality when the choice space is a convex subset of a finite-dimensional real vector space, and LARP characterizes linear utility rationality when the choice space corresponds to a finite choice experiment.     

Subjective expected utility theory revisited: A reductio ad absurdum paradox

A paradox is posed and analyzed in which people reverse their preferences for information on probabilities versus prizes once the range of the unknown probabilities is sufficiently narrowed. This reversal is shown to be incompatible with both objective expected utility (EU) as well as subjective versions in which the same probability transformation applies to all random variables. Experimental data are presented showing that the reversals occur with small, medium and large payoffs.The present paradox is compared with those of Allais and Ellsberg, and found to differ in substantive ways. It raises further questions about the normative status of expected utility theory, especially its treatment of probability and value. The paradox specifically calls into question EU's substitution and compound probability axioms.     

Utility of Gambling when Events are Valued: an Application of Inset Entropy

The present theory leads to a set of subjective weights such that the utility of an uncertain alternative (gamble) is partitioned into three terms involving those weights—a conventional subjectively weighted utility function over pure consequences, a subjectively weighted value function over events, and a subjectively weighted function of the subjective weights. Under several assumptions, this becomes one of several standard utility representations, plus a weighted value function over events, plus an entropy term of the weights. In the finitely additive case, the latter is the Shannon entropy; in all other cases it is entropy of degree not 1. The primary mathematical tool is the theory of inset entropy. The work of Luce and Marley was supported in part by National Science Foundation grant SES-0452756 to the University of California, Irvine, and by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada Discovery Grant 8124 to the University of Victoria for Marley. That of Ng was supported in part by the NSERC of Canada Discovery Grant 8212. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.     

Choice under risk and the security factor: An axiomatic model

The particular attention paid by decision makers to the security level ensured by each decision under risk, which is responsible for the certainty effect, can be taken into account by weakening the independence and continuity axioms of expected utility theory. In the resulting model, preferences depend on: (i) the security level, (ii) the expected utility, offered by each decision. Choices are partially determined by security level comparison and completed by the maximization of a function, which express the existing tradeoffs between expected utility and security level, and is, at a given security level, an affine function of the expected utility. In the model, risk neutrality at a given security level implies risk aversion.