THE SEU CALCULUS: EFFECTS OF RESPONSE MODE,SEX, AND SEX ROLE ON UNCERTAIN DECISIONS *

Subjects were instructed on how to use simple subjective probability and utility scales, and they were asked to actively role-play a decision maker in seven risk-dilemma situations. Each scenario provided subjects with specific subjective expected utility (SEU) information for both a certain and uncertain decision alternative, but left out one critical SEU component. Subjects supplied either the lowest probability or the lowest utility for success that they found necessary before they would select the uncertain over the certain alternative in each dilemma. Three experiments examined: (a) the degree to which Ss' estimations deviated from a pattern predicted by SEU models; (b) differences in choice patterns induced by response format variations (e.g., probability vs. utility estimation); (c) the effects of sex of S; and (d) the effects of the sex-role framing of the decision problems. Ss generally chose in accord with SEU maximization principles and did so with decreasing deviations from theoretical values as practice over situations increased (Experiments I, II and III). Decisions were initially more conservative on items requesting probability estimates (Experiment I), but this effect washed out over situations. Sex differences were revealed (Experiments I and III), but in limited fashion. Rather, a replicable (Experiments I, II and III) sex-by-sex role appropriateness by response format interaction was found, in which females responded “rationally” under both probability and utility estimation conditions and under both role sets (male and female). Males, however, responded extremely conservatively under female-framed, probability estimate conditions. Ss' choices were stable over a three-week interval (Experiment III).     

A Smooth Model of Decision Making under Ambiguity

We propose and characterize a model of preferences over acts such that the decision maker prefers act f to act g if and only if 𝔼_μφ(𝔼_πu○f) 𝔼_μφ(𝔼_πu○g), where 𝔼 is the expectation operator, u is a von Neumann–Morgenstern utility function, φis an increasing transformation, and μis a subjective probability over the set Πof probability measures πthat the decision maker thinks are relevant given his subjective information. A key feature of our model is that it achieves a separation between ambiguity, identified as a characteristic of the decision maker's subjective beliefs, and ambiguity attitude, a characteristic of the decision maker's tastes. We show that attitudes toward pure risk are characterized by the shape of u, as usual, while attitudes toward ambiguity are characterized by the shape of φ. Ambiguity itself is defined behaviorally and is shown to be characterized by properties of the subjective set of measures Π. One advantage of this model is that the well‐developed machinery for dealing with risk attitudes can be applied as well to ambiguity attitudes. The model is also distinct from many in the literature on ambiguity in that it allows smooth, rather than kinked, indifference curves. This leads to different behavior and improved tractability, while still sharing the main features (e.g., Ellsberg's paradox). The maxmin expected utility model (e.g., Gilboa and Schmeidler (1989)) with a given set of measures may be seen as a limiting case of our model with infinite ambiguity aversion. Two illustrative portfolio choice examples are offered.     

Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect

Many violations of the independence axiom of expected utility can be traced to subjects' attraction to risk‐free prospects. The key axiom in this paper, negative certainty independence ([Dillenberger, 2010]), formalizes this tendency. Our main result is a utility representation of all preferences over monetary lotteries that satisfy negative certainty independence together with basic rationality postulates. Such preferences can be represented as if the agent were unsure of how to evaluate a given lottery p; instead, she has in mind a set of possible utility functions over outcomes and displays a cautious behavior: she computes the certainty equivalent of p with respect to each possible function in the set and picks the smallest one. The set of utilities is unique in a well defined sense. We show that our representation can also be derived from a “cautious” completion of an incomplete preference relation.     

Ellsberg Revisited: An Experimental Study

An extension to Ellsberg's experiment demonstrates that attitudes to ambiguity and compound objective lotteries are tightly associated. The sample is decomposed into three main groups: subjective expected utility subjects, who reduce compound objective lotteries and are ambiguity neutral, and two groups that exhibit different forms of association between preferences over compound lotteries and ambiguity, corresponding to alternative theoretical models that account for ambiguity averse or seeking behavior.     

Stochastic Choice and Consideration Sets

We model a boundedly rational agent who suffers from limited attention. The agent considers each feasible alternative with a given (unobservable) probability, the attention parameter, and then chooses the alternative that maximizes a preference relation within the set of considered alternatives. We show that this random choice rule is the only one for which the impact of removing an alternative on the choice probability of any other alternative is asymmetric and menu independent. Both the preference relation and the attention parameters are identified uniquely by stochastic choice data.     

Objective and Subjective Rationality in a Multiple Prior Model

A decision maker (DM) is characterized by two binary relations. The first reflects choices that are rational in an “objective” sense: the DM can convince others that she is right in making them. The second relation models choices that are rational in a “subjective” sense: the DM cannot be convinced that she is wrong in making them. In the context of decision under uncertainty, we propose axioms that the two notions of rationality might satisfy. These axioms allow a joint representation by a single set of prior probabilities and a single utility index. It is “objectively rational” to choose f in the presence of g if and only if the expected utility of f is at least as high as that of g given each and every prior in the set. It is “subjectively rational” to choose f rather than g if and only if the minimal expected utility of f (with respect to all priors in the set) is at least as high as that of g. In other words, the objective and subjective rationality relations admit, respectively, a representation à la Bewley (2002) and à la Gilboa and Schmeidler (1989). Our results thus provide a bridge between these two classic models, as well as a novel foundation for the latter.     

Uncertainty and Risk in Financial Markets

This paper considers a general equilibrium model in which the distinction between uncertainty and risk is formalized by assuming agents have incomplete preferences over state‐contingent consumption bundles, as in Bewley (1986). Without completeness, individual decision making depends on a set of probability distributions over the state space. A bundle is preferred to another if and only if it has larger expected utility for all probabilities in this set. When preferences are complete this set is a singleton, and the model reduces to standard expected utility. In this setting, we characterize Pareto optima and equilibria, and show that the presence of uncertainty generates robust indeterminacies in equilibrium prices and allocations for any specification of initial endowments. We derive comparative statics results linking the degree of uncertainty with changes in equilibria. Despite the presence of robust indeterminacies, we show that equilibrium prices and allocations vary continuously with underlying fundamentals. Equilibria in a standard risk economy are thus robust to adding small degrees of uncertainty. Finally, we give conditions under which some assets are not traded due to uncertainty aversion.     

Vector Expected Utility and Attitudes Toward Variation

This paper proposes a model of decision under ambiguity deemed vector expected utility, or VEU. In this model, an uncertain prospect, or Savage act, is assessed according to (a) a baseline expected‐utility evaluation, and (b) an adjustment that reflects the individual's perception of ambiguity and her attitudes toward it. The adjustment is itself a function of the act's exposure to distinct sources of ambiguity, as well as its variability. The key elements of the VEU model are a baseline probability and a collection of random variables, or adjustment factors, which represent acts exposed to distinct ambiguity sources and also reflect complementarities among ambiguous events. The adjustment to the baseline expected‐utility evaluation of an act is a function of the covariance of its utility profile with each adjustment factor, which reflects exposure to the corresponding ambiguity source. A behavioral characterization of the VEU model is provided. Furthermore, an updating rule for VEU preferences is proposed and characterized. The suggested updating rule facilitates the analysis of sophisticated dynamic choice with VEU preferences.     

Menu‐Dependent Stochastic Feasibility

We examine the role of stochastic feasibility in consumer choice using a random conditional choice set rule (RCCSR) and uniquely characterize the model from conditions on stochastic choice data. Feasibility is modeled to permit correlation in availability of alternatives. This provides a natural way to examine substitutability/complementarity. We show that an RCCSR generalizes the random consideration set rule of [Manzini and Mariotti, 2014]. We then relate this model to existing literature. In particular, an RCCSR is not a random utility model.     

Consistent Probabilistic Social Choice

Two fundamental axioms in social choice theory are consistency with respect to a variable electorate and consistency with respect to components of similar alternatives. In the context of traditional non‐probabilistic social choice, these axioms are incompatible with each other. We show that in the context of probabilistic social choice, these axioms uniquely characterize a function proposed by Fishburn (1984). Fishburn's function returns so‐called maximal lotteries, that is, lotteries that correspond to optimal mixed strategies in the symmetric zero‐sum game induced by the pairwise majority margins. Maximal lotteries are guaranteed to exist due to von Neumann's Minimax Theorem, are almost always unique, and can be efficiently computed using linear programming.     

Costly Self‐Control and Random Self‐Indulgence

We study the random Strotz model, a version of the Strotz (1955) model with uncertainty about the nature of the temptation that will strike. We show that the random Strotz representation is unique and characterize a comparative notion of “more temptation averse.” Also, we demonstrate an unexpected connection between the random Strotz model and a generalization of the Gul–Pesendorfer (GP) (2001) model of temptation which allows for the temptation to be uncertain and which we call random GP. In particular, a preference over menus has a random GP representation if and only if it also has a representation via a random Strotz model with sufficiently smooth uncertainty about the intensity of temptation. We also show that choices of menus combined with choices from menus can distinguish the random GP and random Strotz models.     

Social Indeterminacy

An extension of Condorcet's paradox by McGarvey (1953) asserts that for every asymmetric relation R on a finite set of candidates there is a strict‐preferences voter profile that has the relation R as its strict simple majority relation. We prove that McGarvey's theorem can be extended to arbitrary neutral monotone social welfare functions that can be described by a strong simple game G if the voting power of each individual, measured by the Shapley–Shubik power index, is sufficiently small. Our proof is based on an extension to another classic result concerning the majority rule. Condorcet studied an election between two candidates in which the voters' choices are random and independent and the probability of a voter choosing the first candidate is p>1/2. Condorcet's jury theorem asserts that if the number of voters tends to infinity then the probability that the first candidate will be elected tends to one. We prove that this assertion extends to a sequence of arbitrary monotone strong simple games if and only if the maximum voting power for all individuals tends to zero.     

Coordination in Games with Strategic Complementarities: An Experiment on Fixed vs. Random Matching

In this article, we study behavior in a series of two‐player supply chain game experiments. Each player simultaneously chooses a capacity before demand is realized, and sales are given by the minimum of realized demand and chosen capacities. We focus on the differences in behavior under fixed pairs and random rematching. Intuition suggests that long‐run relations should lead to more profitable outcomes. However, our results go against this intuition. While subjects' capacity choices are better aligned (i.e., closer together) under fixed pairs, average profits are more variable. Moreover, learning is slower under fixed pairs—so much so that over the last five periods, average profits are actually higher under random rematching. The underlying cause for this finding appears to be a “first‐impressions” bias, present only under fixed matching, in which the greater the misalignment in initial choices, the lower are average profits.     

Random Choice and Private Information

We consider an agent who chooses an option after receiving some private information. This information, however, is unobserved by an analyst, so from the latter's perspective, choice is probabilistic or random. We provide a theory in which information can be fully identified from random choice. In addition, the analyst can perform the following inferences even when information is unobservable: (1) directly compute ex ante valuations of menus from random choice and vice versa, (2) assess which agent has better information by using choice dispersion as a measure of informativeness, (3) determine if the agent's beliefs about information are dynamically consistent, and (4) test to see if these beliefs are well‐calibrated or rational.     

Temptation and Self‐Control

We study a two‐period model where ex ante inferior choice may tempt the decision‐maker in the second period. Individuals have preferences over sets of alternatives that represent second period choices. Our axioms yield a representation that identifies the individual's commitment ranking, temptation ranking, and cost of self‐control. An agent has a preference for commitment if she strictly prefers a subset of alternatives to the set itself. An agent has self‐control if she resists temptation and chooses an option with higher ex ante utility. We introduce comparative measures of preference for commitment and self‐control and relate them to our representations.     

Individual Sense of Justice: A Utility Representation

We present an axiomatic model depicting the choice behavior of a self‐interest seeking moral individual over random allocation procedures. Individual preferences are decomposed into a self‐interest component and a component representing the individual's moral value judgment. Each component has a distinct utility representation, and the preference relation depicting the choice behavior is representable by a real‐valued function defined on the components utilities. The utility representing the self‐interest component is linear and the utility representing the individual's moral value judgment is quasi‐concave. The addition of a hexagon condition implies that the utility representing the individual's preference is additively separable in the components utilities.     

AGGREGATING EXPERT OPINION IN DECISION-MAKING

In using nominal groups for decision making, it is necessary to use some mechanical procedure for combining the evaluations. A simulation model is used to compare procedures for the case where a nominal group of m evaluators must select the best of n alternatives and where the evaluations are subject to random errors. Criteria are the probability of making a correct selection and the relative quality of the choice.     

Ordinally Bayesian Incentive Compatible Voting Rules

We study strategic voting after weakening the notion of strategy‐proofness to Ordinal Bayesian Incentive Compatibility (OBIC). Under OBIC, truth‐telling is required to maximize the expected utility of every voter, expected utility being computed with respect to the voter's prior beliefs and under the assumption that everybody else is also telling the truth. We show that for a special type of priors, i.e., the uniform priors, there exists a large class of social choice functions that are OBIC. However, for priors that are generic in the set of independent beliefs, a social choice function is OBIC only if it is dictatorial. This result underlines the robustness of the Gibbard–Satterthwaite Theorem.     

Random Choice as Behavioral Optimization

We develop an extension of Luce's random choice model to study violations of the weak axiom of revealed preference. We introduce the notion of a stochastic preference and show that it implies the Luce model. Then, to address well‐known difficulties of the Luce model, we define the attribute rule and establish that the existence of a well‐defined stochastic preference over attributes characterizes it. We prove that the set of attribute rules and random utility maximizers are essentially the same. Finally, we show that both the Luce and attribute rules have a unique consistent extension to dynamic problems.