An additive representation on the product of complete,continuous extensive structures

This article develops an axiom system to justify an additive representation for a preference relation \({\succsim}\) on the product \({\prod_{i=1}^{n}A_{i}}\) of extensive structures. The axiom system is basically similar to the n-component (n ≥ 3) additive conjoint structure, but the independence axiom is weakened in the system. That is, the axiom exclusively requires the independence of the order for each of single factors from fixed levels of the other factors. The introduction of a concatenation operation on each factor A _i makes it possible to yield a special type of restricted solvability, i.e., additive solvability and the usual cancellation on \({\prod_{i=1}^{n}A_{i}}\). In addition, the assumption of continuity and completeness for A _i implies a stronger type of solvability on A _i . The additive solvability, cancellation, and stronger solvability axioms allow the weakened independence to be effective enough in constructing the additive representation.     

Which Scoring Rule Maximizes Condorcet Efficiency Under Iac?

Consider an election in which each of the n voters casts a vote consisting of a strict preference ranking of the three candidates A, B, and C. In the limit as n→∞, which scoring rule maximizes, under the assumption of Impartial Anonymous Culture (uniform probability distribution over profiles), the probability that the Condorcet candidate wins the election, given that a Condorcet candidate exists? We produce an analytic solution, which is not the Borda Count. Our result agrees with recent numerical results from two independent studies, and contradicts a published result of Van Newenhizen (Economic Theory 2, 69–83. (1992)).     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Violations of the betweenness axiom and nonlinearity in probability

Betweenness is a weakened form of the independence axiom, stating that a probability mixture of two gambles should lie between them in preference. Betweenness is used in many generalizations of expected utility and in applications to game theory and macroeconomics. Experimental violations of betweenness are widespread. We rule out intransitivity as a source of violations and find that violations are less systematic when mixtures are presented in compound form (because the compound lottery reduction axiom fails empirically). We also fit data from nine studies using Gul's disappointment-aversion theory and two variants of EU, which weight separate or cumulative probabilities nonlinearly. The three theories add only one parameter to EU and fit much better.     

Subgame perfect equilibrium in a bargaining model with deterministic procedures

Two players, A and B, bargain to divide a perfectly divisible pie. In a bargaining model with constant discount factors, \(\delta _A\) and \(\delta _B\), we extend Rubinstein (Econometrica 50:97–110, 1982)’s alternating offers procedure to more general deterministic procedures, so that any player in any period can be the proposer. We show that each bargaining game with a deterministic procedure has a unique subgame perfect equilibrium (SPE) payoff outcome, which is efficient. Conversely, each efficient division of the pie can be supported as an SPE outcome by some procedure if \(\delta _A+\delta _B\ge 1\), while almost no division can ever be supported in SPE if \(\delta _A+\delta _B < 1\).     

Prudence and extensionality in theories of preference and value

Luce's axiom governing probabilities of choice is formulated as a principle governing metalinguistic probabilities. IfX, Y, W are sets of options, and δ(X), δ(Y), δ(W) are sentences asserting that choice is made from these sets, then the axiom is $$\begin{gathered} If \pi [\delta (X)] \ne 0 and \pi [\delta (X \cap Y)] \ne 0, then \hfill \\ \pi _{\delta (X)} [\delta (Y \cap W)] = \pi _{\delta (X \cap Y)} [\delta (W)]\pi _{\delta (X)} [\delta (Y)] \hfill \\ \end{gathered} $$ where π is a probability on sentences. The axiom is then entailed by extensionality of the probability π in company with a simple condition on probabilities of truth-functions. Conditions are also given under which the probability π is uniquely represented by a probability on the sets of options. What look to be logical constraints on the metalanguage entail a normative or prudential constraint. Debreu's well-known counterinstance to the axiom as a principle governing probability of choice is examined and a novel and consistent interpretation of the axiom is proposed.     

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.     

What can multiple price lists really tell us about risk preferences?

Multiple price lists have emerged as a simple and popular method for eliciting risk preferences. Despite their popularity, a key downside of multiple price lists has not been widely recognized — namely that the approach is unlikely to generate sufficient information to accurately identify different dimensions of risk preferences. The most popular theories of decision making under risk posit that preferences for risk are driven by a combination of two factors: the curvature of the utility function and the extent to which probabilities are weighted non-linearly. In this paper, we show that the widely used multiple price list introduced by Holt and Laury (The American Economic Review 92(5) 1644–1655 2002) is likely more accurate at eliciting the shape of the probability weighting function, and we construct a different multiple price list that is likely more accurate at eliciting the shape of the utility function. We show that by combining information from different multiple price lists, greater predictive performance can be achieved.     

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.     

Experimental evidence on valuation with multiple priors

Popular models for decision making under ambiguity assume that people use not one but multiple priors. This paper is a first attempt to experimentally elicit the min and the max of multiple priors directly. In an ambiguous scenario we measure a participant’s single prior, her min and max of multiple priors, and the valuation of an ambiguous asset with the same underlying states as the ambiguous scenario. We use the min and the max of multiple priors to directly test two popular multiple priors models: the maxmin model and the α maxmin model. We find more support for the α maxmin model: although people put about twice the weight on the minimum of multiple priors, they also consider the maximum. Furthermore, we indirectly elicit confidence weights over the whole set of multiple priors and test two additional models: variational preferences and the smooth model of ambiguity. Two particular versions of the variational preferences model explain less than the α maxmin but more than the maxmin model. Overall, the smooth model of ambiguity performs best among all models tested.     

Conditional expected utility

Let \({\mathcal {E}}\) be a class of events. Conditionally Expected Utility decision makers are decision makers whose conditional preferences \(\succsim _{E}\), \(E\in {\mathcal {E}}\), satisfy the axioms of Subjective Expected Utility (SEU) theory. We extend the notion of unconditional preference that is conditionally EU to unconditional preferences that are not necessarily SEU. We study a subclass of these preferences, namely those that satisfy dynamic consistency. We give a representation theorem, and show that these preferences are Invariant Bi-separable in the sense of Ghirardato et al. (Journal of Economic Theory 118:133–173, 2004). We also show that these preferences have only a trivial overlap with the class of Choquet Expected Utility preferences, but there are plenty of preferences of the \(\alpha \)-Maxmin Expected Utility type that satisfy our assumptions. We identify several concrete settings where our results could be applied. Finally, we consider the special case where the unconditional preference is itself SEU, and compare our results with those of Fishburn (Econometrica 41:1–25, 1973).     

A note on the Condorcet jury theorem for couples

A jury and two valid options are given. Each agent of the jury picks exactly one of these options. The option with the most votes will be chosen by the jury. In the N-couple model of Althöfer and Thiele (Theory and Decision 81:1–15, 2016), the jury consisted of 2N agents. These agents form N independent couples, with dependencies within the couples. The authors assumed that the agents who form a couple have the same competence level. In this note, we relax this assumption by allowing different competence levels within the couples. We show that the theoretical results of Althöfer and Thiele remain valid under this relaxation.     

Time preferences and consumer behavior

We investigate the predictive power of survey-elicited time preferences. The discount factor elicited from choice experiments using real payments predicts various health, energy, and financial outcomes, including overall self-reported health, smoking, installing energy-efficient lighting, and credit card balance. Allowing for time-inconsistent preferences, both the long-run and present-bias discount factors (δ and β) are also significantly associated in the expected direction with several outcomes. We consider several hypotheses regarding the strength of the association between discount factors and outcomes, such as salience of the outcome or liquidity constraints.     

Security level,potential level,expected utility: A three-criteria decision model under risk

Among the violations of expected utility (E.U.) theory which have been observed by experimenters, the violations of its independence axiom is, by far, the most common. It seems that, in many cases, these inconsistencies can be ascribed to the desire for security - called the security factor by L. Lopes (1986) - which makes people attach special importance to the worst outcomes of risky decisions as well as to the sole outcomes of riskless decisions (certainty effect). J.-Y. Jaffray (1988) has proposed a model which generalizes E.U. theory by taking into account this factor and is then able to account for certain violations. However, especially in experiments on choice involving prospective losses, violations of the von Neumann-Morgenstern independence axiom cannot be explained by the security factor alone and have to be partially ascribed to the potential factor (L. Lopes, 1986) which reflects heightened attention to the best outcomes of decisions, especially when the best outcome is the status quo. In this paper, we construct an axiomatic model for subjects taking into account simultaneously or alternatively the security factor and the potential factor. For this, as in Jaffray's model, it has been necessary to weaken not only the standard independence axiom but also the continuity axiom and, in the same time, to reinforce the dominance axiom. In the resulting model, choices are partially determined by the mere comparison of the (security level, potential level) (i.e. the (worst outcome, best outcome)) pairs offered, and completed by the maximization of an affine function of the expected utility, the coefficients of which depend on both the security level and potential level.In this model, a decision maker who (i) has constant marginal utility for money, (ii) is sensitive to the security factor alone in the domain of gains, (iii) is sensitive to the potential factor alone in the domain of losses, behaves as a risk averter for gains and a risk seeker for losses.     

Implementing egalitarianism in a class of Nash demand games

We add a stage to Nash’s demand game by allowing the greedier player to revise his demand if the demands are not jointly feasible. If he decides to stick to his initial demand, then the game ends and no one receives anything. If he decides to revise it down to \(1-x\), where x is his initial demand, the revised demand is implemented with certainty. The implementation probability changes linearly between these two extreme cases. We derive a condition on the feasible set under which the two-stage game has a unique subgame perfect equilibrium. In this equilibrium, there is first-stage agreement on the egalitarian demands. We also study two n-player versions of the game. In either version, if the underlying bargaining problem is “divide-the-dollar,” then equal division is sustainable in a subgame perfect equilibrium if and only if the number of players is at most four.     

Elicitation of preferences under ambiguity

This paper is about behaviour under ambiguity—that is, a situation in which probabilities either do not exist or are not known. Our objective is to find the most empirically valid of the increasingly large number of theories attempting to explain such behaviour. We use experimentally-generated data to compare and contrast the theories. The incentivised experimental task we employed was that of allocation: in a series of problems we gave the subjects an amount of money and asked them to allocate the money over three accounts, the payoffs to them being contingent on a ‘state of the world’ with the occurrence of the states being ambiguous. We reproduced ambiguity in the laboratory using a Bingo Blower. We fitted the most popular and apparently empirically valid preference functionals [Subjective Expected Utility (SEU), MaxMin Expected Utility (MEU) and α-MEU], as well as Mean-Variance (MV) and a heuristic rule, Safety First (SF). We found that SEU fits better than MV and SF and only slightly worse than MEU and α-MEU.     

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.