Payoff Kinks in Preferences over Lotteries

This paper identifies two distinct types of payoff kinks that can be exhibited by preference functions over monetary lotteries—locally separable vs. locally nonseparable—and illustrates their relationship to the payoff and probability derivatives of such functions. Expected utility and Fréchet differentiable preference functions are found to be incapable of exhibiting locally nonseparable payoff kinks; rank-dependent preference functions are incapable of avoiding them.     

Comparative Risk Sensitivity with Reference-Dependent Preferences

Experimental evidence suggests that individuals are risk averse over gains and risk seeking over losses (i.e., they have S-shaped utility functions in an expected utility setting) and that they are loss averse. Furthermore, the evidence leads to a single definition of S-shaped utility, but it has led to several alternative specifications of loss aversion. This paper characterizes the relations more S-shaped than and more loss averse than for a utility function, and in so doing arrives at a new definition of loss aversion based on average instead of marginal utility.     

A μ-σ-Risk Aversion Paradox and Wealth Dependent Utility

We report a surprising property of --preferences: the assumption of nonincreasing relative risk aversion implies the optimal portfolio being riskless. We discuss a solution of that paradox using wealth dependent utility functions in detail. Using the revealed preference theory we show that (general, i.e. not necessary -) wealth dependent utility functions can be characterized by Wald's axiom.     

Utility theory and the Bayesian paradigm

In this paper, a problem for utility theory - that it would have an agent who was compelled to play Russian Roulette with one revolver or another, to pay as much to have a six-shooter with four bullets relieved of one bullet before playing with it, as he would be willing to pay to have a six-shooter with two bullets emptied - is reviewed. A less demanding Bayesian theory is described, that would have an agent maximize expected values of possible total consequence of his actions. And utility theory is located within that theory as valid for agents who satisfy certain formal conditions, that is, for agents who are, in terms of that more general theory, indifferent to certain dimensions of risk. Raiffa- and Savage-style arguments for its more general validity are then resisted. Addenda are concerned with implications for game theory, and relations between utilities and values.     

Endogenous risk and protection premiums

Endogenous risk implies an individual perceives he can influence the likelihood that a state of nature will occur. To add structure to endogenous risk models, I define a protection premium for reduced uncertainty about protection efficiency when a stochastic variable enters the probability functionp(x) rather than the utility function. For a binary lottery, a measure of aversion of uncertain protection efficiency(x) =-p(x)/p(x) is defined to unambiguously determine the effects of increased risk on an individual's voluntary contribution to public good supply earmarked to reduce the probability of an undesirable state. Finally, I examine the protection premium in ann-state discrete lottery and when uncertainty exists in both the probability and utility function.     

Majority vote of even and odd experts in a polychotomous choice situation

The performance of majority vote by an odd number of voters in a dichotomous situation is a much-studied subject. In this paper, we study the performance of group consensus in a situation of polychotomous choice. The differences in majority vote behaviour between even and odd numbers of expert panellists are examined, and the effects of adding new members are derived. Unlike the dichotomous model, optimality in the present context may not be uniquely defined, so the probabilities of the consensus being correct or erroneous are both considered as the number of experts is increased.     

On the foundations of mean-variance analyses

Let (, ) and (, ) be mean-standard deviation pairs of two probability distributions on the real line. Mean-variance analyses presume that the preferred distribution depends solely on these pairs, with primary preference given to larger mean and smaller variance. This presumption, in conjunction with the assumption that one distribution is better than a second distribution if the mass of the first is completely to the right of the mass of the second, implies that (, ) is preferred to (, ) if and only if either > or ( = and < ), provided that the set of distributions is sufficiently rich. The latter provision fails if the outcomes of all distributions lie in a finite interval, but then it is still possible to arrive at more liberal dominance conclusions between (, ) and (, ).This research was supported by the Office of Naval Research.     

Ordinal utility models of decision making under uncertainty

This paper studies two models of rational behavior under uncertainty whose predictions are invariant under ordinal transformations of utility. The quantile utility model assumes that the agent maximizes some quantile of the distribution of utility. The utility mass model assumes maximization of the probability of obtaining an outcome whose utility is higher than some fixed critical value. Both models satisfy weak stochastic dominance. Lexicographic refinements satisfy strong dominance.The study of these utility models suggests a significant generalization of traditional ideas of riskiness and risk preference. We define one action to be riskier than another if the utility distribution of the latter crosses that of the former from below. The single crossing property is equivalent to a minmax spread of a random variable. With relative risk defined by the single crossing criterion, the risk preference of a quantile utility maximizer increases with the utility distribution quantile that he maximizes. The risk preference of a utility mass maximizer increases with his critical utility value.     

Testing Descriptive Utility Theories: Violations of Stochastic Dominance and Cumulative Independence

Choices between gambles show systematic violations of stochastic dominance. For example, most people choose ($6, .05; $91, .03; $99, .92) over ($6, .02; $8, .03; $99, .95), violating dominance. Choices also violate two cumulative independence conditions: (1) If S = (z, r; x, p; y, q) R = (z, r; x, p; y, q) then S = (x, r; y, p + q) R = (x, r + p; y, q). (2) If S = (x, p; y, q; z, r) R = (x, p; y, q; z, r) then S = (x, p + q; y, r) R = (x, p; y, q + r), where 0 < z < x < x < y < y < y < z.Violations contradict any utility theory satisfying transivity, outcome monotonicity, coalescing, and comonotonic independence. Because rank-and sign-dependent utility theories, including cumulative prospect theory (CPT), satisfy these properties, they cannot explain these results.However, the configural weight model of Birnbaum and McIntosh (1996) predicted the observed violations of stochastic dominance, cumulative independence, and branch independence. This model assumes the utility of a gamble is a weighted average of outcomes\' utilities, where each configural weight is a function of the rank order of the outcome\'s value among distinct values and that outcome\'s probability. The configural weight, TAX model with the same number of parameters as CPT fit the data of most individuals better than the model of CPT.     

Sequential Parimutuel Betting in the Laboratory

This paper investigates parimutuel betting in the laboratory. Our experimental design relies on a simple sequential betting game where equilibrium strategies are characterized according to objective probabilities, the number of bettors, and publicly observable odds. The empirically well-documented phenomenon referred to as the favorite-longshot bias is observed in two of our three treatments. We offer a theoretical explanation of the subjects' behavior which relies on rank-dependent expected utility and pessimistic expectations about future bets.     

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.     

Substitution of indifferent options at choice nodes and admissibility: a reply to Rabinowicz

Tiebreak rules are necessary for revealing indifference in non- sequential decisions. I focus on a preference relation that satisfies Ordering and fails Independence in the following way. Lotteries a and b are indifferent but the compound lottery 0.5f, 0.5b is strictly preferred to the compound lottery 0.5f, 0.5a. Using tiebreak rules the following is shown here: In sequential decisions when backward induction is applied, a preference like the one just described must alter the preference relation between a and b at certain choice nodes, i.e., indifference between a and b is not stable. Using this result, I answer a question posed by Rabinowicz (1997) concerning admissibility in sequential decisions when indifferent options are substituted at choice nodes.     

Flexibility,endogenous risk,and the protection premium

We introduce two types of protection premia. The unconstrained protection premium, ^u, is the individual's willingness to pay for certain protection efficiency given flexibility to adjust optimally the investment in protection. The constrained protection premium, ^c, measures willingness to pay for certain protection efficiency given no flexibility to adjust the investment in protection. ^u depends on tastes and wealth as well as protection technology whereas ^c depends only on technology. We show that ^c cannot exceed ^u and develop necessary conditions for ^c=^u. Optimal protection for an individual with decision flexibility may be larger or smaller than that desired under no flexibility.Journal Paper No. J-15504 of the Iowa Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station, Ames, Iowa. Project No. 3048.     

Timing contradictions in von Neumann and Morgenstern's axioms and in savage's ‘sure-thing’ proof

At the point of choice, let N be the delay in learning the outcome. Then von Neumann and Morgenstern's postulates contradictorily imply that N = 0 and N > 0. As a consequence, Savage's sure-thing proof, which has bestowed on expected utility theory most of its normative appeal, depends on inconsistent assumptions. Further, the validity of Savage's proof cannot be retrieved by minimizing N > 0, by making the delay a mere moment or so. The historical origins of these contradictions are traced to (i) von Neumann and Morgenstern inadvertently limiting their risk model to the certain period, that is the period after gamblers learn the outcome(s), and (ii) Savage's use of the sure-thing principle for analysing atemporally but also quite formally compound gambles [Savage, 1954, p. 23].     

The impact of risk attitude,uncertainty and disequilibria on optimal production and inventory

Summary The empirical facts seem to indicate that in real economies the effect of uncertainty tends to decrease production. The limitations of empirical investigations presented should be stressed: they were performed mainly on an aggregate level, they mainly refer to Austrian manufacturing, they rely heavily on questionnaires. Above all empirical investigation will never be able to decide normative questions or to explain the behavior in the general equilibrium. Nevertheless in the short run, given all the rigidities and disequilibria which exist, uncertainty tends to lower optimal production even in absence of risk aversion. Risk aversion becomes important for large, for once-for-all decisions, but it is not the only channel through which uncertainty changes decisions.Technological concavity created by concave marginal revenues or by convex marginal costs, marginal costs of uncertainty in disequilibria model or asymmetric costs of revisions of the preliminary decision are able to bias the decision downward in a real world economy without invokingPaper presented to the 2nd Conference on the Foundations of Risk and Utility (FUR), Venezia, 1984.     

How can an expert system help in choosing the optimal decision?

We introduce a rationality principle for a preference relation on an arbitrary set of lotteries. Such a principle is a necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of an expected utility agreeing with . The same principle also guarantees a rational extension of the preference relation to any larger set of lotteries. When the extended relation is unique with respect to the alternatives under consideration, the decision maker does not need a numerical evaluation in order to make a choice. Such a rationality condition needs little information in order to be applied, and its verification amounts to solving a linear system.The present research is supported by the Research Contract of CNR (Research National Council) 1989 and 1990 Decision Models under uncertainty and risk, for expert systems with incomplete and revisable information.     

An Experimental Comparison of Induced and Elicited Beliefs

Understanding choice under risk requires knowledge of beliefs and preferences. A variety of methods have been proposed to elicit peoples beliefs. The efficacy of alternative methods, however, has not been rigorously documented. Herein we use an experiment to test whether an induced probability can be recovered using an elicitation mechanism based on peoples predictions about a random event. We are unable to recover the induced belief. Instead, the estimated belief is systematically biased in a way that is consistent with anecdotal evidence in the economics, psychology, and statistics literature: people seem to overestimate low and underestimate high probabilities.     

Mean variance preferences and the heat equation

Chipman (1979) proves that for an expected utility maximizer choosing from a domain of normal distributions with mean and variance ² the induced preference functionV(, ) satisfies a differential equation known as the heat equation. The purpose of this note is to provide a generalization and simple proof of this result which does not depend on the normality assumption.     

Metatickles and the dynamics of deliberation

The traditional or orthodox decision rule of maximizing conditional expected utility has recently come under attack by critics who advance alternative causal decision theories. The traditional theory has, however, been defended. And these defenses have in turn been criticized. Here, I examine two objections to such defenses and advance a theory about the dynamics of deliberation (a diachronic theory about the process of deliberation) within the framework of which both objections to the defenses of the traditional theory fail.     

Simulation methodology

Operational researchers, management scientists, and industrial engineers have been asked by Russell Ackoff to become systems scientists, yet he stated that Systems Science is not a science. (TIMS Interfaces, 2 (4), 41). A. C. Fabergé (Science 184, 1330) notes that the original intent of operational researchers was that they be scientists, trained to observe. Hugh J. Miser (Operations Research 22, 903), views operations research as a science, noting that its progress indeed is of a cyclic nature.The present paper delineates explicitly the attributes of simulation methodology. Simulation is shown to be both an art and a science; its methodology, properly used, is founded both on confirmed (validated) observation and scrutinised (verified) art work.The paper delineates the existing procedures by which computer-directed models can be cyclically scrutinised and confirmed and therefore deemed credible. The complexities of the phenomena observed by social scientists are amenable to human understanding by properly applied simulation; the methodology of the scientist of systems (the systemic scientist).

---

Résumé Russell Ackoff propose à ceux qui s'occupent de recherches opérationnelle, industrielle, et de gestion, d'agir en systems scientists, et pourtant il affirme que systems science n'est pas une science (TIMS Interfaces 2 (4), 41). A. C. Fabergé (Science 184, 1330) remarque, qu'à l'origine, le but de ceux qui s'occupaient de recherche opérationnelle était d'agir en hommes de science instruits à observer. Hugh J. Miser (Operational Research 22, 903) considère la recherche opérationnelle comme science, notant que ses progrès sont en effet de nature cyclique.La présente étude délimite explicitement les attributs de la méthode de la simulation. Il est démontré que la simulation est à la fois un art et une science; sa méthode, lorsqu'utilisée correctement, repose sur l'observation validée et le modèle vérifié.L'étude délimite les moyens actuels dont nous disposons pour vérifier et valider cycliquement les modèles bâtis à l'aide d'ordinateurs, établissant ainsi leur crédibilité. La nature complexe des phénomènes étudiés par les sciences sociales peut être comprise à l'aide de la simulation: la méthode dont se servent les hommes de science qui étudient les systèmes (les scientistes systémiques).