Loss aversion leading to advantageous selection

Some insurance markets are characterized by “advantageous selection”, that is, ex-post risk and coverage are negatively correlated. We show that expectation-based loss aversion as in K?szegi and Rabin (Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(4), 1133–1165, 2006; The American Economic Review, 97(4), 1047–1073, 2007) provides a natural explanation for this phenomenon in environments in which risk aversion models do not, e.g., when agents face modest-scale risks and/or in absence of moral hazard. More exposure to risk has two competing effects on an agent’s willingness to pay for insurance: a positive effect, as in standard expected utility models; and a negative one, due to a reference effect. We determine conditions under which an insurance provider optimally sets a high price at which only low risk agents buy.     

A simple framework for the axiomatization of exponential and quasi-hyperbolic discounting

The main goal of this paper is to investigate which normative requirements, or axioms, lead to exponential and quasi-hyperbolic forms of discounting. Exponential discounting has a well-established axiomatic foundation originally developed by Koopmans (Econometrica 28(2):287–309, 1960, 1972) and Koopmans et al. (Econometrica 32(1/2):82–100, 1964) with subsequent contributions by several other authors, including Bleichrodt et al. (J Math Psychol 52(6):341–347, 2008). The papers by Hayashi (J Econ Theory 112(2):343–352, 2003) and Olea and Strzalecki (Q J Econ 129(3):1449–1499, 2014) axiomatize quasi-hyperbolic discounting. The main contribution of this paper is to provide an alternative foundation for exponential and quasi-hyperbolic discounting, with simple, transparent axioms and relatively straightforward proofs. Using techniques by Fishburn (The foundations of expected utility. Reidel Publishing Co, Dordrecht, 1982) and Harvey (Manag Sci 32(9):1123–1139, 1986), we show that Anscombe and Aumann’s (Ann Math Stat 34(1):199–205, 1963) version of Subjective Expected Utility theory can be readily adapted to axiomatize the aforementioned types of discounting, in both finite and infinite horizon settings.     

Optimal inequality behind the veil of ignorance

In Rawls’ (A theory of justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1971) influential social contract approach to distributive justice, the fair income distribution is the one that an individual would choose behind a veil of ignorance. Harsanyi (J Polit Econ 61:434–435, 1953, J Polit Econ 63:309–332, 1955, Am Polit Sci Rev 69:594–606, 1975) treated this situation as a decision under risk and arrived at utilitarianism using expected utility theory. This paper investigates the implications of applying cumulative prospect theory instead, which better describes behavior under risk. I find that the specific type of inequality in bottom-heavy right-skewed income distributions, which includes the log-normal income distribution, could be perceived as desirable. This optimal inequality result contrasts the implications of other social welfare criteria.     

On nonexistence of reconsideration-proof equilibrium with state variables

Reconsideration-proofness is a solution concept proposed by Kocherlakota (Games Econ Behav 15(1):33–54, 1996) for infinite horizon single-player problems in which time inconsistency is important. Kocherlakota’s (1996) definition has a limitation: it is not applicable to environments with state variables. The limitation is important because many time-inconsistent problems have state variables. This paper displays a natural generalization of reconsideration-proofness to environments with state variables, and shows that it leads to nonexistence in three examples. Such nonexistence contrasts with the general existence theorem obtained in environments without state variables in Kocherlakota (1996). In the first two examples, existence can be recovered with a modification in the solution concept. In the last example, nonexistence occurs even with the modified solution concept. Insights about further research are derived from these nonexistence results.     

A note on budget constraints and outside options in common agency

Bernheim and Whinston (Q J Econ 101:1–31, 1986) show that, in a common agency problem without budget constraints, the set of Nash equilibria with truthful strategies (TNE), the set of coalition-proof Nash equilibria (CPNE), and the principal-optimal core of the underlying coalitional game are non-empty and all equivalent in payoff space. We show that, with budget constraints, none of Bernheim and Whinston’s (Q J Econ 101:1–31, 1986) results hold: (i) a CPNE may not exist, (ii) a TNE may not exist even when a CPNE exists, (iii) a TNE may not be a CPNE, and (iv) both TNE and CPNE payoffs are core allocations but are not necessarily principal-optimal. However, when principals have outside options but no budget constraints, (i), and (iii) continue to hold but not for (ii) and (iv). In particular, a TNE always exists but the core may be empty.     

All agreed: Aumann meets DeGroot

We represent consensus formation processes based on iterated opinion pooling (DeGroot in J Am Stat Assoc 69:118–121, 1974; Lehrer and Wagner in Rational consensus in science and society: a philosophical and mathematical study. Springer, Berlin, 1981) as a dynamic approach to common knowledge of posteriors (Aumann in Ann Stat 4(6):1236–1239, 1976; Geanakoplos and Polemarchakis in J Econ Theory 28:192–200, 1982). We thus provide a concrete and plausible Bayesian rationalization of consensus through iterated pooling. The link clarifies the conditions under which iterated pooling can be rationalized from a Bayesian perspective, and offers an understanding of iterated pooling in terms of higher-order beliefs.     

Strategic ambiguity and decision-making: an experimental study

We conducted a set of experiments to compare the effect of ambiguity in single-person decisions and games. Our results suggest that ambiguity has a bigger impact in games than in ball and urn problems. We find that ambiguity has the opposite effect in games of strategic substitutes and complements. This confirms a theoretical prediction made by Eichberger and Kelsey (J Econ Theory 106:436–466, 2002). In addition, we note that subjects’ ambiguity attitudes appear to be context dependent: ambiguity loving in single-person decisions and ambiguity averse in games. This is consistent with the findings of Kelsey and le Roux (Theory Decis 79:667–688, 2015).     

Ensemble prospectism

Incomplete preferences displaying ‘mildly sweetened’ structure are common, yet theoretically problematic. This paper examines the properties of the rankings induced by the set of all coherent completions of the mildly sweetened partial preference structure. Building on these properties, I propose an ensemble-based refinement of Hare’s (Analysis 70:237–247, 2010) prospectism criterion for rational choice when preferences are incomplete. Importantly, this ensemble-based refinement is immune to Peterson’s (Theory and Decision 78:451–456, 2015) weak money pump argument. Hence, ensemble prospectism ensures outcome rationality. Furthermore, by recognizing the structural isomorphism between mildly sweetened preference structures and Cover’s splitting rule in Blackwell’s Pick the Largest Number problem (Ann Math Stat 22:393–399, 1951), ensemble prospectism can be shown to yield better-than-even odds of selecting the ex-post higher utility option—despite the absence of all-things-considered preferences ex ante.     

Optimize,satisfice, or choose without deliberation? A simple minimax-regret assessment

Simon (Q J Econ 69:99–118, 1955) introduced satisficing, but he did not provide a precise definition or analysis. Other researchers have subsequently interpreted satisficing in various ways, but a consensus perspective still has not emerged. This paper interprets satisficing as a class of decision strategies that a person might use when seeking to optimize in a setting where deliberation is costly. Costly deliberation lies at the heart of Simon’s motivation of satisficing, but he did not formalize the idea. I do so here, studying decision making as a problem of minimax-regret planning in which costly deliberation enables a person to reduce ambiguity. I report simple specific findings on how the magnitude of deliberation costs may affect choice of a decision strategy.     

Piecewise linear rank-dependent utility

Choice under risk is modelled using a piecewise linear version of rank-dependent utility. This model can be considered a continuous version of NEO-expected utility (Chateauneuf et al., J Econ Theory 137:538–567, 2007). In a framework of objective probabilities, a preference foundation is given, without requiring a rich structure on the outcome set. The key axiom is called complementary additivity.     

When and how to satisfice: an experimental investigation

This paper is about satisficing behaviour. Rather tautologically, this is when decision-makers are satisfied with achieving some objective, rather than in obtaining the best outcome. The term was coined by Simon (Q J Econ 69:99–118, 1955), and has stimulated many discussions and theories. Prominent amongst these theories are models of incomplete preferences, models of behaviour under ambiguity, theories of rational inattention, and search theories. Most of these, however, seem to lack an answer to at least one of two key questions: when should the decision-maker (DM) satisfice; and how should the DM satisfice. In a sense, search models answer the latter question (in that the theory tells the DM when to stop searching), but not the former; moreover, usually the question as to whether any search at all is justified is left to a footnote. A recent paper by Manski (Theory Decis. doi: 10.1007/s11238-017-9592-1, 2017) fills the gaps in the literature and answers the questions: when and how to satisfice? He achieves this by setting the decision problem in an ambiguous situation (so that probabilities do not exist, and many preference functionals can therefore not be applied) and by using the Minimax Regret criterion as the preference functional. The results are simple and intuitive. This paper reports on an experimental test of his theory. The results show that some of his propositions (those relating to the ‘how’) appear to be empirically valid while others (those relating to the ‘when’) are less so.     

Asymmetric Choquet random walks and ambiguity aversion or seeking

Asymmetric Choquet random walks are defined, in the form of dynamically consistent random walks allowing for asymmetric conditional capacities. By revisiting Kast and Lapied (Dynamically consistent Choquet random walk and real investments. Document de Travail n. 2010-33, GREQAM, HAL id: halhs-00533826, 2010b) and Kast et al. (Econ Model, 38:495–503, 2014) we show that some findings regarding the effects of ambiguity aversion are preserved in the more general framework, which is of interest in several applications to policy making, risk management, corporate decisions, real option valuation of investment/ disinvestment projects, etc. The effect of ambiguity on the higher moments is investigated, as well, as they have an interpretation in terms of the psychological attitude of a decision-maker towards ambiguity. Finally, some financial applications are provided as an illustration.     

Comparing uncertainty aversion towards different sources

In this article, we discuss some aspects of Eliaz and Ok ’s (Games Econ Behav 56:61–86, 2006) choice theoretical foundations of incomplete preferences. Our aim is to clarify some aspects of their regularity condition for preorders, showing that, as far as rationalization of a choice correspondence alone is concerned, no further restriction is imposed by requiring the preorder to be regular. However, if one is also interested in capturing other observable aspects of the individual’s choice procedure, such as Eliaz and Ok’s notion of c-incomparability or the notion of behavioral indifference introduced in this paper, then the only option is to use a regular preorder. We also argue that their weak axiom of revealed non-inferiority (WARNI) is too strong a property if our aim is to characterize the rationalizability of a choice correspondence by a (possibly incomplete) preorder. Finally, as we have mentioned above, we introduce the notion of behavioral indifference and argue, not only that Eliaz and Ok’s notion of c-incomparability (observable incomparability) can be derived from it, but also that it has a wider range of applicability than their notion of observable incomparability.     

Dictatorship on top-circular domains

We consider domains with a natural property called top-circularity. We show that if such a domain satisfies either the maximal conflict property or the weak conflict property, then it is dictatorial. We obtain the result in Sato (Rev Econ Des 14(3):331–342, 2010) as a corollary. Furthermore, it follows from our results that the union of a single-peaked domain and a single-dipped domain (with respect to a given ordering over the alternatives) is dictatorial.     

Sleepiness,choice consistency,and risk preferences

We investigate the consistency and stability of individual risk preferences by manipulating cognitive resources. Participants are randomly assigned to an experiment session at a preferred time of day relative to their diurnal preference (circadian matched) or at a non-preferred time (circadian mismatched) and choose allocations between two risky assets [using the Choi et al. (Am Econ Rev 27(5):1921–1938, 2007), design]. We find that choices of circadian matched and mismatched subject are statistically similar in terms of satisfying basic requirements for preference consistency. However, mismatched subjects tend to choose riskier asset bundles.     

A note on a recent paper by Dagsvik on IIA and random utilities

In a recent paper in this journal, Dagsvik derives the class of independent random utility representations that are “equivalent” to the independence-from-irrelevant-alternatives (IIA) assumption by Luce (Individual choice behavior: a theoretical analysis. Wiley, New York, 1959). In this short note, we clarify the relations between this paper by Dagsvik, and a paper in Lindberg’s 2012 thesis.     

Modelling curiosity in decision-making

This paper develops a model of choice with an agent that is capable of experiencing curiosity using Loewenstein’s (Psychol Bull 116(1):75–98, 1994) information gap interpretation of curiosity. We then proceed to determine the restrictions on choice behaviour implied by the model in two choice environments: no discovery—where the Decision-Maker does not have the opportunity to learn—and discovery—where she is afforded such an opportunity. These restrictions can be applied by an observer to determine if a Decision-Maker’s choices align with the model.     

Risk preferences of Australian academics: where retirement funds are invested tells the story

Risk preferences of Australian academics are elicited by analyzing the aggregate distribution of their retirement funds (superannuation) across available investment options. Not more than 10 % of retirement funds are invested as if their owners maximize expected utility under the assumption of constant relative risk aversion with an empirically plausible level of risk aversion. An implausibly high level of risk aversion is required to rationalize any investment into bonds when stocks are available. Not more than 36.54 % of all investments can be rationalized by a model of loss averse preferences. Moreover, the levels of loss aversion typically reported in the experimental studies imply overinvestment in bonds, which is not observed in the data. Up to 67.18 % of all investments can be rationalized by rank-dependent utility or Yaari’s (Econometrica 55:95–115 1987) dual model with empirically plausible parameters. A median Australian academic behaves as if maximizing rank-dependent utility with parameter \(\gamma \in [0.76, 0.79]\) in a Tversky and Kahneman (J Risk Uncertain 5:297–323 1992) probability weighting function.     

Lottery- and survey-based risk attitudes linked through a multichoice elicitation task

We analyze the results from three different risk attitude elicitation methods. First, the broadly used test by Holt and Laury (2002), HL, second, the lottery-panel task by Sabater-Grande and Georgantzis (2002), SG, and third, responses to a survey question on self-assessment of general attitude towards risk (Dohmen et al. 2011). The first and the second task are implemented with real monetary incentives, while the third concerns all domains in life in general. Like in previous studies, the correlation of decisions across tasks is low and usually statistically non-significant. However, when we consider only subjects whose behavior across the panels of the SG task is compatible with constant relative risk aversion (CRRA), the correlation between HL and self-assessed risk attitude becomes significant. Furthermore, the correlation between HL and SG also increases for CRRA-compatible subjects, although it remains statistically non-significant.     

Resolute majority rules

We investigate resolute voting rules that always rank two alternatives strictly and avoid social indecision. Resolute majority rules differ from the standard majority rule in that whenever both alternatives win the same number of votes, a tie-breaking function is used to determine the outcome. We provide axiomatic characterizations of resolute majority rules or resolute majority rules with a quorum. Resoluteness axiom is used in all these results. The other axioms are weaker than those considered in the characterization of the majority rule by May (1952 Econometrica, 20:680–684). In particular, instead of May’s positive responsiveness, we consider a much weaker monotonicity axiom.