One-reason decision-making: Modeling violations of expected utility theory

People violate expected utility theory and this has been traditionally modeled by augmenting its weight-and-add framework by nonlinear transformations of values and probabilities. Yet individuals often use one-reason decision-making when making court decisions or choosing cellular phones, and institutions do the same when creating rules for traffic safety or fair play in sports. We analyze a model of one-reason decision-making, the priority heuristic, and show that it simultaneously implies common consequence effects, common ratio effects, reflection effects, and the fourfold pattern of risk attitude. The preferences represented by the priority heuristic satisfy some standard axioms. This work may provide the basis for a new look at bounded rationality.

A test of generalized expected utility theory

In two experiments we test Machina's Hypothesis II (fanning-out). In each experiment we analyze patterns of responses to hypothetical lottery choice questions within a Marschak-Machina triangle. One set of questions involves lotteries on the border of the triangle, an the other set of questions involves lotteries in the interior of the triangle (off the border). Our results show that a large proportion of the observed patterns in the on-border treatment support Hypothesis II, with a considerable amount of fanning-out behavior observed. The patterns observed in the off-border treatment are significantly different from those in the on-border treatment. Hypothesis II performs well in the off-border treatment because expected utility theory itself, which satisfies the restrictions of Hypothesis II, performs well.This is an expanded version of a paper originally prepared for presentation at the Fifth International Conference on the Foundation and Applications of Utility, Risk, and Decision Theories, held June 9–13, 1990 at Duke University, Durham, NC. We acknowledge helpful comments made by participants at that conference, especially those of Mark Machina.     

A theory of subjective expected utility with vague preferences

This paper shows how notions of vagueness in preferences and judgments of personal probabilities can be accommodated within an axiomatization of subjective expected utility by the use of extraneous scaling probabilities and gambles on consequences. The representational form obtained says that the subjective expected utility of one act exceeds the subjective expected utility of a second act whenever the first is preferred to the second. The paper also explores the possibility of obtaining this representational form under Savage's formulation, which does not use extraneous probabilities, and discusses difficulties encountered in this approach.     

Subjective expected utility theory revisited: A reductio ad absurdum paradox

A paradox is posed and analyzed in which people reverse their preferences for information on probabilities versus prizes once the range of the unknown probabilities is sufficiently narrowed. This reversal is shown to be incompatible with both objective expected utility (EU) as well as subjective versions in which the same probability transformation applies to all random variables. Experimental data are presented showing that the reversals occur with small, medium and large payoffs.The present paradox is compared with those of Allais and Ellsberg, and found to differ in substantive ways. It raises further questions about the normative status of expected utility theory, especially its treatment of probability and value. The paradox specifically calls into question EU's substitution and compound probability axioms.     

Rules of behavior and expected utility theory. Compatibility versus dependence

Conclusions We have seen that many decision rules which are intuitively and/or empirically supported and compatible with MEU, are compatible with it but not dependent on it.There are of course rules of behavior which are implied in MEU and also depend on it like this:If the hope of winning any of the prizes in a lottery motivates you to buy a ticket, and if you win half the amount of the highest prize, you should play double or nothing with your prize.Suppose you would prefer a one in a million chance of winning $2 million to a two in a million chance of winning $1 million, but your first choice is not available so you buy a ticket for $1 million. If you win, you should play 50–50 double or nothing with your prize. Generalize: put x in the place of $1 million and p in the place of 1/1 000000, and test yourself against this principle (Pf = preferred to): (p, 2x)Pf(2p, x) (0.5, 2x)Pf(1, x).See Friedmann and Savage (1968).In the real world lotteries are multiprize, i.e., composite games of elements like these. The same applies: If you would not have preferred the highest prize exchanged for a higher probability of some lower prize, then winning a lower prize would put you in the market for some simple bet like above. If you stand up to this test, you are a unique person because, as we know, such bets are not made.While in the process of finishing the final draft, I got hold of (Samuelson, 1983). He expresses grave doubts as to what he calls the dogma of Expected Utility maximizing. In a somewhat apologetic way, he preserves some formulations deriving behavior from EUM because, as he states in a general way, they do not depend on that particular dogma. More specifically: many models incompatible with EUM imply risk aversion, which would result also from maximizing the expectation of a concave utility function,In view of the authoritarian disposition of some of the strongest defenders of EUM and of Samuelson's (well deserved) authority and his leading role in the school of EUM theory, his open expression of doubt may well mark the beginning of the last chapter in the history of the rise and fall of the most powerful school that has so far been active in 20th century decision theory.     

The arguments of utility: Preference reversals in expected utility of income models

There is a debate in the literature about the arguments of utility in expected utility theory. Some implicitly assume utility is defined on final wealth whereas others argue it may be defined on initial wealth and income separately. I argue that making income and wealth separate arguments of utility has important implications that may not be widely recognized. A framework is presented that allows the unified treatment of expected utility models and anomalies. I show that expected utility of income models can predict framing induced preference reversals, a willingness to pay-willingness to accept gap for lotteries, and choice-value preference reversals. The main contribution is a theorem. It is proved that for all utility functions where initial wealth and income enter separately, either there will be preference reversals or preferences can be represented by a utility function defined on final wealth alone.     

Production under uncertainty and choice under uncertainty in the emergence of generalized expected utility theory

Theory and Decision - Interest in the foundations of the theory of choice under uncertainty was stimulated by applications of expected utility theory such as the Sandmo model of production under...     

Buying and selling price for risky lotteries and expected utility theory with gambling wealth

I analyze two expected utility models which abandon the consequentialist assumption of terminal wealth positions. In the expected utility of gambling wealth model, in which initial wealth is allowed to be small, I show that a large WTA/WTP gap is possible and the (Rabin in Econometrica, 68(5), 1281–1292, 2000) paradox may be resolved. Within the same model the classical preference reversal which allows arbitrage is not possible, whereas preference reversal (involving buying prices in place of selling prices), which does not allow arbitrage, is possible. In the expected utility of wealth changes model, in which there is no initial wealth, I show that both a WTA/WTP gap as well as the classical preference reversal are possible due to loss aversion, both in its general as well as some specific forms.     

Subjective expected utility: A review of normative theories

This paper reviews theories of subjective expected utility for decision making under uncertainty. It focuses on normative interpretations and discusses the primitives, axioms and representation-uniqueness theorems for a number of theories. Similarities and differences among the various theories are highlighted. The interplay between realistic decision structures and structural axioms that facilitate mathematical derivations is also emphasized.The review attempts to be complete up to 1980. Among others, it includes theories developed by Ramsey; Savage; Suppes; Davidson and Suppes; Anscombe and Aumann; Pratt, Raiffa and Schlaifer; Fishburn; Bolker; Jeffrey; Pfanzagl; Luce and Krantz.     

Compatibility of multiple goal programming and the maximize expected utility criterion

Assuming a decision maker accepts the basic axioms of von Neumann-Morgenstern utility theory and is therefore an expected utility maximizer, this paper argues that the domain of the decision variables in a multiobjective program should be altered in order to guarantee that it will be compatible with the maximize expected utility critierion. Stochastic dominance is employed to approximate this new domain, and for a certain class of decision problems it is shown that this approximation is very good.     

Measures of risk aversion with expected and nonexpected utility

In the expected utility case, the risk-aversion measure is given by the Arrow-Pratt index. Three proposals of a risk-aversion measure for the nonexpected utility case are examined. The first one sets “the second derivative of the acceptance frontier as a measure of local risk aversion.” The second one takes into account the concavity in the consequences of the partial derivatives of the preference function with respect to probabilities. The third one measures risk aversion through the ratio between the risk premium and the standard deviation of the lottery. The third proposal catches the main feature of risk aversion, while the other two proposals are not always in accordance with the same crude definition of risk aversion, by which there is risk aversion when an agent prefers to get the expected value of a lottery rather than to participate in it.     

Recursive expected utility and the separation of attitudes towards risk and ambiguity: an experimental study

We use the multiple price list method and a recursive expected utility theory of smooth ambiguity to separate out attitude towards risk from that towards ambiguity. Based on this separation, we investigate if there are differences in agent behaviour under uncertainty over gain amounts vis-a-vis uncertainty over loss amounts. On an aggregate level, we find that (i) subjects are risk averse over gains and risk seeking over losses, displaying a “reflection effect” and (ii) they are ambiguity neutral over gains and are mildly ambiguity seeking over losses. Further analysis shows that on an individual level, and with respect to both risky and ambiguous prospects, there is limited incidence of a reflection effect where subjects are risk/ambiguity averse (seeking) in gains and seeking (averse) in losses, though this incidence is higher for ambiguous prospects. A very high proportion of such cases of reflection exhibit risk (ambiguity) aversion in gains and risk (ambiguity) seeking in losses, with the reverse effect being significantly present in the case of risk but almost absent in case of ambiguity. Our results suggest that reflection across gains and losses is not a stable individual characteristic, but depends upon whether the form of uncertainty is precise or ambiguous, since we rarely find an individual who exhibits reflection in both risky and ambiguous prospects. We also find that correlations between attitudes towards risk and ambiguity were domain dependent.      

Packaging effective community service delivery: the utility of mandates and contracts in obtaining administrative cooperation

Voluntary agreements, mandates, and contracts integrate networks of social service organizations, allowing them to function as coordinated wholes. The author reviews the history of contracting and mandating in the public sector. It is hypothesized that contracted relationships formalize agreements between local organizations dependent on others. Mandated relationships are perceived to be important by policy-makers at a state or federal level. The differential acceptance and rejection of these relationships in the community is explored. Data from social service agencies are used to compare administrators' assessments of the effectiveness of mandated and contracted relationships used to coordinate a group of agencies delivering services to children. When a mandated relationship has been formalized into a contract by a local administrator the perceived effectiveness of that relationship is higher than any other relationship in the community. If the mandated relationship has not been formalized by a contract this relationship is perceived to be the least effective. Important mandated inter-organizational ties without monetary incentives are less likely to work. Local administrators having developed the contracted ties see these ties as producing a higher level of performance.     

The value of information in anticipated utility theory

A well-known property of expected utility theory is that the value of information is nonnegative. Given the widespread dissatisfaction with the expected utility hypothesis, a natural question to ask is whether competing theories of choice preserve this property. This article considers one widely discussed alternative to expected utility, anticipated utility theory. We show that, like expected utility, the anticipated value of perfect information is always nonnegative. The value of imperfect information, however, may be negative, though the precise valuation of information depends upon whether the reduction of compound lotteries axiom is used to derive the anticipated utility functional.I am indebted to Edi Karni, Peter Wakker, and an anonymous referee for helpful comments on earlier versions of this article. They are of course in no way responsible for errors or obscurities in the present version.     

Chance theory: A separation of riskless and risky utility

Journal of Risk and Uncertainty - In a temporal context, sure outcomes may yield higher utility than risky ones as they are available for the execution of plans before the resolution of...     

The value of perfect information in nonlinear utility theory

Wakker (1988) has recently shown that, in contrast to an expected utility maximizer, the value of information will sometimes be negative for an agent who violates the independence axiom of expected utility theory. We demonstrate, however, that the value ofperfect information will always be nonnegative if the agent satisfies a weak dominance axiom. This result thus mitigates to some degree the normative objection to nonlinear utility theory implicit in Wakker's finding.     

Correcting expected utility for comparisons between alternative outcomes: A unified parameterization of regret and disappointment

A unified parameterization of an expected utility model corrected for regret and disappointment effects is presented, constrained to conform to a well-known choice pattern, the common consequence effect, a special case of the Allais paradox. For choices subject to regret and disappointment effects to be consistent with this choice pattern, the function that corrects the utility of the obtained outcome has to have a positive second derivative for its regret component and a negative second derivative for its disappointment component. These hypothesized functional forms make predictions about the relative effect that small vs. large differences between obtained and alternative outcomes should have on people’s experiences of regret or disappointment.

The preservation of multivariate comparative statics in nonexpected utility theory

This article investigates the preservation of multivariate expected utility comparative statics for “smooth” nonexpected utility representations. Specifically, we answer the following question: if an expected utility comparative statics property depends only on preferences over sure prospects, then when will a nonexpected utility maximizer with identical sure preferences also satisfy that property? We demonstrate that the effects of increased risk aversion are preserved under the “Almost Degenerate Independence” axiom, but that those of distribution changes of exogenous risks are not preserved under stringent assumptions. Hence, nonexpected utility comparative statics may diverge from expected utility, even for “first-order” properties—those whose effect is determinable from restrictions on “local” utility functions.     

Retrospective on the utility theory of von Neumann and Morgenstern

This article offers an exegesis of the passages in von Neumann and Morgenstern (1944, 1947, 1953) that discuss their conception of utility. It is occasioned by two factors. First, as we approach the semicentennial of the publication of Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, its immense impact on economic thought in the intervening years encourages serious reflection on its authors' ideas. Second, misleading statements about the theory continue to appear. The article will have accomplished its purpose if it helps others appreciate the genius and spirit of the theory of utility fashioned by John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern.