An experimental evaluation of the descriptive validity of lottery-dependent utility theory

This article compares the performance of the expected utility (EU) and lottery-dependent expected utility (LDEU) models in predicting the actual choices of experimental subjects among risky options. In the process, we present two approaches for calibrating the LDEU model for an individual decision maker. The results indicate that while LDEU exhibits a higher potential for correctly predicting choice, the version of the model calibrated by indifference judgments does not outperform EU. We suggest a functional form for the parametric functions that defines the LDEU model, and discuss ways in which this function can be incorporated into choice-based assessment approaches to improve predictions.This research was supported in part by the Business Associates Fund at the Fuqua School of Business, Duke University.     

Common Consequence Conditions in Decision Making under Risk

We generalize the Allais common consequence effect by describing three common consequence effect conditions and characterizing their implications for the probability weighting function in rank-dependent expected utility. The three conditions—horizontal, vertical, and diagonal shifts within the probability triangle—are necessary and sufficient for different curvature properties of the probability weighting function. The first two conditions, shifts in probability mass from the lowest to middle outcomes and middle to highest outcomes respectively, are alternative conditions for concavity and convexity of the weighting function. The third condition, decreasing Pratt-Arrow absolute concavity, is consistent with recently proposed weighting functions. The three conditions collectively characterize where indifference curves fan out and where they fan in. The common consequence conditions indicate that for nonlinear weighting functions in the context of rank-dependent expected utility, there must exist a region where indifference curves fan out in one direction and fan in the other direction.     

An experimental test of several generalized utility theories

There is much evidence that people willingly violate expected utility theory when making choices. Several axiomatic theories have been proposed to explain some of this evidence, but there are few data that discriminate between the theories. To gather such data, an experiment was conducted using pairs of gambles with three levels of outcomes and many combinations of probabilities. Most typical findings were replicated, including the common consequence effect and different risk attitudes for gains and losses. There is evidence of both fanning out and fanning in of indifference curves, and both quasiconcavity and quasiconvexity of preferences. No theory can explain all the data, but prospect theory and the hypothesis that indifference curves fan out can explain most of them.The Wharton School,University of Pennsylvania     

Testing between alternative models of choice under uncertainty: Some initial results

Experiments have identified a number of well-known violations of expected utility theory, giving rise to alternative models of choice under uncertainty, all of which are able to explain these violations. In this article, predictions of several prominent rival formulations are examined. No single alternative consistently organizes choices. Among the more important inconsistencies, we identify conditions generating systematic fanning in of indifference curves in the unit probability triangle, and find risk-loving over a number of gambles with all positive payoffs, in cases where prospect theory predicts risk aversion.     

Dynamic Choice and NonExpected Utility

This paper explores how some widely studied classes of nonexpected utility models could be used in dynamic choice situations. A new "sequential consistency" condition is introduced for single-stage and multi-stage decision problems. Sequential consistency requires that if a decision maker has committed to a family of models (e.g., the multiple priors family, the rank-dependent family, or the betweenness family) then he use the same family throughout. Conditions are presented under which dynamic consistency, consequentialism, and sequential consistency can be simultaneously preserved for a nonexpected utility maximizer. An important class of applications concerns cases where the exact sequence of decisions and events, and thus the dynamic structure of the decision problem, is relevant to the decision maker. It is shown that for the multiple priors model, dynamic consistency, consequentialism, and sequential consistency can all be preserved. The result removes the argument that nonexpected utility models cannot be consistently used in dynamic choice situations. Rank-dependent and betweenness models can only be used in a restrictive manner, where deviation from expected utility is allowed in at most one stage.     

Risk aversion over finite domains

We investigate risk attitudes when the underlying domain of payoffs is finite and the payoffs are, in general, not numerical. In such cases, the traditional notions of absolute risk attitudes, that are designed for convex domains of numerical payoffs, are not applicable. We introduce comparative notions of weak and strong risk attitudes that remain applicable. We examine how they are characterized within the rank-dependent utility model, thus including expected utility as a special case. In particular, we characterize strong comparative risk aversion under rank-dependent utility. This is our main result. From this and other findings, we draw two novel conclusions. First, under expected utility, weak and strong comparative risk aversion are characterized by the same condition over finite domains. By contrast, such is not the case under non-expected utility. Second, under expected utility, weak (respectively: strong) comparative risk aversion is characterized by the same condition when the utility functions have finite range and when they have convex range (alternatively, when the payoffs are numerical and their domain is finite or convex, respectively). By contrast, such is not the case under non-expected utility. Thus, considering comparative risk aversion over finite domains leads to a better understanding of the divide between expected and non-expected utility, more generally, the structural properties of the main models of decision-making under risk.

     

Stochastic expected utility theory

This paper proposes a new decision theory of how individuals make random errors when they compute the expected utility of risky lotteries. When distorted by errors, the expected utility of a lottery never exceeds (falls below) the utility of the highest (lowest) outcome. This assumption implies that errors are likely to overvalue (undervalue) lotteries with expected utility close to the utility of the lowest (highest) outcome. Proposed theory explains many stylized empirical facts such as the fourfold pattern of risk attitudes, common consequence effect (Allais paradox), common ratio effect and violations of betweenness. Theory fits the data from ten well-known experimental studies at least as well as cumulative prospect theory.

Violations of betweenness and choice shifts in groups

In decision theory, the betweenness axiom postulates that a decision maker who chooses an alternative A over another alternative B must also choose any probability mixture of A and B over B itself and can never choose a probability mixture of A and B over A itself. The betweenness axiom is a weaker version of the independence axiom of expected utility theory. Numerous empirical studies documented systematic violations of the betweenness axiom in revealed individual choice under uncertainty. This paper shows that these systematic violations can be linked to another behavioral regularity—choice shifts in a group decision making. Choice shifts are observed if an individual faces the same decision problem but makes a different choice when deciding alone and in a group.     

Advances in multiattribute utility theory

Several advances in multiattribute expected utility theory have emerged recently. Much of the existing theory deals with independence axioms on whole attributes and the corresponding utility decompositions. This paper reviews three alternate approaches for obtaining representations of multiattribute utility functions: (1) multi-valent preference analysis, (2) approximation methods, and (3) indifference spanning analysis. Unlike some utility decompositions, these approaches require the assessment of only single-attribute functions which makes implementation relatively simple. Only multivalent preference analysis and indifference spanning analysis, however, provide axioms that can be empirically tested to justify a particular utility representation.This research was supported in part by the Office of Naval Research under Contract No. N00014-78-C-0638, Task No. NR-277-258.     

Mixture axioms in linear and multilinear utility theories

Three different approaches to mixture axioms have been used in expected utility theories. The most general approach uses the decision maker's indifference relation in the mixture axioms. We show how this approach can be used to obtain general axiomatizations for the traditional linear utility form and for a recently developed multilinear utility form.     

A multiattribute decision time theory

In this study, we analyze choice in the presence of some conflict that affects the decision time (response time), a subject that has been documented in the literature. We axiomatize a multiattribute decision time (MDT) representation, which is a dynamic extension of the classic multiattribute expected utility theory that allows potentially incomplete preferences. Under this framework, one alternative is preferred to another in a certain period if and only if the weighted sum of the attribute-dependent expected utility induced by the former alternative is larger than that induced by the latter for all attribute weights in a closed and convex set. MDT uniquely determines the decision time as the earliest period at which the ranking between alternatives becomes decisive. The comparative statics result indicates that the decision time provides useful information to locate indifference curves in a specific setting. MDT also explains various empirical findings in economics and other relevant fields.     

Risk aversion in the small and in the large: Calibration results for betweenness functionals

A reasonable level of risk aversion with respect to small gambles leads to a high, and absurd, level of risk aversion with respect to large gambles. This was demonstrated by Rabin (Econometrica 68:1281–1292, 2000) for expected utility theory. Later, Safra and Segal (Econometrica, 2008) extended this result by showing that similar arguments apply to many non-expected utility theories, provided they are Gateaux differentiable. In this paper we drop the differentiability assumption and by restricting attention to betweenness theories we show that much weaker conditions are sufficient for the derivation of similar calibration results.

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).

     

Supermodularity and the Comparative Statics of Risk

In this article, it is shown that a wide range of comparative statics results from expected utility theory can be extended to generalized expected utility models using the tools of supermodularity theory. In particular, a range of concepts of decreasing absolute risk aversion may be formulated in terms of the supermodularity properties of certainty equivalent representations of preferences.     

Indirect methods for valuing changes in environmental risks with nonexpected utility preferences

Theoretical models for estimating individuals' values for sure improvements in environmental quality are well developed. These models can be classified as being based on averting behavior, hedonic prices, or weak complementarity. Some of these models have also been applied to the task of valuing changes in risk based on expected utility theory. This article provides a systematic development of these models for changes in either the probability or the magnitude of an uncertain event and shows that the derived expressions for individual marginal willingness to pay can be generalized to nonexpected utility preferences as long as the index of preferences is continuous, convex, and twice differentiable.     

A new test of convexity–concavity of discount function

Discounted utility theory and its generalizations (e.g., quasihyperbolic discounting, generalized hyperbolic discounting) use discount functions for weighting utilities of outcomes received in different time periods. We propose a new simple test of convexity–concavity of discount function. This test can be used with any utility function (which can be linear or not) and any preferences over risky lotteries (expected utility theory or not). The data from a controlled laboratory experiment show that about one third of experimental subjects reveal a concave discount function and another one third of subjects reveal a convex discount function (for delays up to two month).

     

Two-parameter decision models and rank-dependent expected utility

This paper extends the existing literature concerning the relationship between two parameter decision models and those based on expected utility in two main directions. The first relaxes Meyer's location and scale (or Sinn's linear class) condition and shows that a two-parameter representation of preferences over uncertain prospects and the expected utility representation yield consistent rankings of random variables when the decision maker's choice set is restricted to random variables differing by mean shifts and monotone meanpreserving spreads. The second shows that the rank-dependent expected utility model is also consistent with two-parameter ranking methods if the probability transform satisfies certain dominance conditions. The main implication of these results is that the simple two-parameter model can be used to analyze the comparative statics properties of a wide variety of economic models, including those with multiple sources of uncertainty when the random variables are comonotonic. To illustrate this point, we apply our results to the problem of optimal portfolio investment with random initial wealth. We find that it is relatively easy to obtain strong global comparative statics results even if preferences do not satisfy the independence axiom.     

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.      

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.     

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.