Parametric multi-attribute utility functions for optimal profit under risk constraints

We provide an economic interpretation of the practice consisting in incorporating risk measures as constraints in an expected prospect maximization problem. For what we call the infimum of expectations class of risk measures, we show that if the decision maker (DM) maximizes the expectation of a random prospect under constraint that the risk measure is bounded above, he then behaves as a “generalized expected utility maximizer” in the following sense. The DM exhibits ambiguity with respect to a family of utility functions defined on a larger set of decisions than the original one; he adopts pessimism and performs first a minimization of expected utility over this family, then performs a maximization over a new decisions set. This economic behaviour is called “maxmin under risk” and studied by Maccheroni (Econ Theory 19:823–831, 2002). As an application, we make the link between an expected prospect maximization problem, subject to conditional value-at-risk being less than a threshold value, and a non-expected utility economic formulation involving “loss aversion”-type utility functions.     

Simultaneous moves multi-person continuous time concession game

The alternating offers strategic bargaining approach (Rubinstein, 1982) suggest a unique perfect equilibrium. In this equilibrium the bargaining ends immediately and the outcome is Pareto optimal. In this paper we consider a bargaining game in which players move simultaneously. Since we allow players only to lower their demands over time we denote this game as a concession game. We demonstrate that in this game there is a perfect equilibrium in which the bargaining lasts long enough so that the pie shrinks to zero. We show that we can generalize this game to a multi-player concession game in a straightforward manner and so avoiding the difficulties of generalizing the alternating offers game to the multi-player case.     

On arguments from self-interest for the Nash solution and the Kalai egalitarian solution to the bargaining problem

I argue in this paper that there are two considerations which govern the dynamics of a two-person bargaining game, viz. relative proportionate utility loss from conceding to one's opponent's proposal and relative non-proportionate utility loss from not conceding to one's opponent's proposal, if she were not to concede as well. The first consideration can adequately be captured by the information contained in vNM utilities. The second requires measures of utility which allow for an interpersonal comparison of utility differences. These considerations respectively provide for a justification of the Nash solution and the Kalai egalitarian solution. However, none of these solutions taken by themselves can provide for a full story of bargaining, since, if within a context of bargaining one such consideration is overriding, the solution which does not match this consideration will yield unreasonable results. I systematically present arguments to the effect that each justification from self-interest for respectively the Nash and the Kalai egalitarian solution is vulnerable to this kind of objection. I suggest that the search for an integrative model may be a promising line of research.I am grateful to Jon Elster, A. Hylland, F. Spinnewijn, J. Verhoeven and the members of the research group for theoretical sociology in the K.U.L. for their comments on an earlier version of this paper. I also thank the Ministry for Foreign Affairs (Norway) for its financial support and the members of the department of sociology in the University of Oslo for their hospitality and interest in my work.     

The Likelihood Method for Decision under Uncertainty

This paper introduces the likelihood method for decision under uncertainty. The method allows the quantitative determination of subjective beliefs or decision weights without invoking additional separability conditions, and generalizes the Savage–de Finetti betting method. It is applied to a number of popular models for decision under uncertainty. In each case, preference foundations result from the requirement that no inconsistencies are to be revealed by the version of the likelihood method appropriate for the model considered. A unified treatment of subjective decision weights results for most of the decision models popular today. Savage’s derivation of subjective expected utility can now be generalized and simplified. In addition to the intuitive and empirical contributions of the likelihood method, we provide a number of technical contributions: We generalize Savage’s nonatomiticy condition (“P6”) and his assumption of (sigma) algebras of events, while fully maintaining his flexibility regarding the outcome set. Derivations of Choquet expected utility and probabilistic sophistication are generalized and simplified similarly. The likelihood method also reveals a common intuition underlying many other conditions for uncertainty, such as definitions of ambiguity aversion and pessimism.     

A variational model of preference under uncertainty

A familiar example devised by Daniel Ellsberg to highlight the effects of event ambiguity on preferences is transformed to separate aleatory uncertainty (chance) from epistemic uncertainty. The transformation leads to a lottery acts model whose states involve epistemic uncertainty; aleatory uncertainty enters into the statedependent lotteries. The model proposes von Neumann-Morgenstern utility for lotteries, additive subjective probability for states, and the use of across-states standard deviation weighted by a coefficient of aversion to variability to account for departures from Anscombe-Aumann subjective expected utility. Properties of the model are investigated and a partial axiomatization is provided.     

On the Application of Multiattribute Utility Theory to Models of Choice

Ellsberg (The Quarterly Journal of Economics 75, 643–669 (1961); Risk, Ambiguity and Decision, Garland Publishing (2001)) argued that uncertainty is not reducible to risk. At the center of Ellsberg’s argument lies a thought experiment that has come to be known as the three-color example. It has been observed that a significant number of sophisticated decision makers violate the requirements of subjective expected utility theory when they are confronted with Ellsberg’s three-color example. More generally, such decision makers are in conflict with either the ordering assumption or the independence assumption of subjective expected utility theory. While a clear majority of the theoretical responses to these violations have advocated maintaining ordering while relaxing independence, a persistent minority has advocated abandoning the ordering assumption. The purpose of this paper is to consider a similar dilemma that exists within the context of multiattribute models, where it arises by considering indeterminacy in the weighting of attributes rather than indeterminacy in the determination of probabilities as in Ellsberg’s example.      

Elicitation of Subjective Probabilities when the Initial Endowment is Unobservable

In the framework of subjective expected utility theory we develop two distinct procedures for the elicitation of a person's subjective probabilities when the initial endowment is random and unobservable. Procedures of the first kind rely on the boundedness of the utility function to elicit the person's subjective probabilities directly. Procedures of the second kind infer the person's initial endowment from his choice behavior prior to the application of probability elicitation.     

On the coase theorem and coalitional stability: the principle of equal relative concession

The Coase theorem is argued to be incompatible with bargaining set stability due to a tension between the grand coalition and sub-coalitions. We provide a counter-intuitive argument to demonstrate that the Coase theorem may be in complete consonance with bargaining set stability. We establish that an uncertainty concerning the formation of sub-coalitions will explain such compatibility: each agent fears that others may `gang up' against him and this fear forces the agents to negotiate. The grand coalition emerges from the negotiations if each agent uses the principle of equal relative sacrifice to determine the actual allocation. We also establish the rational basis for the choice of the principle of equal relative concession by the negotiating agents. Hence we argue that the Coase theorem will be valid even if there are stable sub-coalitions.     

Loss Aversion and Bargaining

We consider bargaining situations where two players evaluate outcomes with reference-dependent utility functions, analyzing the effect of differing levels of loss aversion on bargaining outcomes. We find that as with risk aversion, increasing loss aversion for a player leads to worse outcomes for that player in bargaining situations. An extension of Nash's axioms is used to define a solution for bargaining problems with exogenous reference points. Using this solution concept we endogenize the reference points into the model and find a unique solution giving reference points and outcomes that satisfy two reasonable properties, which we predict would be observed in a steady state. The resulting solution also emerges in two other approaches, a strategic (non-cooperative) approach using Rubinstein's (1982) alternating offers model and a dynamic approach in which we find that even under weak assumptions, outcomes and reference points converge to the steady state solution from any non-equilibrium state.     

Subjectively weighted linear utility

An axiomatized theory of nonlinear utility and subjective probability is presented in which assessed probabilities are allowed to depend on the consequences associated with events. The representation includes the expected utility model as a special case, but can accommodate the Ellsberg paradox and other types of ambiguity sensitive behavior, while retaining familiar properties of subjective probability, such as additivity for disjoint events and multiplication of conditional probabilities. It is an extension, to the states model of decision making under uncertainty, of Chew's weighted linear utility representation for decision making under risk.     

An Experiment on Rational Insurance Decisions

We describe the results of an experiment on decision making in an insurance context. The experiment was designed to test for the underlying rationality of insurance consumers, where rationality is understood in usual economic terms. In particular, using expected utility as the preference function, we test for positive marginal utility, risk aversion, and decreasing absolute risk aversion, all of which are normal postulates for any microeconomic decision context under uncertainty or risk. We find that there the discrepancy from rational decision making increases with the sophistication of the rationality criteria, that irrationality concerning fair premium contracts is uncharacteristically high, and that the slope of absolute risk aversion seems to depend on the format of the insurance contract. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Capacity Updating Rules and Rational Belief Change

Choquet expected utility substitutes capacities for subjective probabilities to explain uncertainty aversion and related phenomena. This paper studies capacities as models of belief. The notions of inner and outer acceptance context are defined. These are shown to be the natural acceptance contexts when belief expansion is described by naïve Bayesian and Dempster–Shafer updating of capacities respectively. We also show that Eichberger and Kelsey's (1999b) use of Dempster–Shafer updating as a model of belief revision may lead to violations of the AGM axioms for rational belief change.     

What Makes a Good Decision? Robust Satisficing as a Normative Standard of Rational Decision Making

Most decisions in life involve ambiguity, where probabilities can not be meaningfully specified, as much as they involve probabilistic uncertainty. In such conditions, the aspiration to utility maximization may be self‐deceptive. We propose “robust satisficing” as an alternative to utility maximizing as the normative standard for rational decision making in such circumstances. Instead of seeking to maximize the expected value, or utility, of a decision outcome, robust satisficing aims to maximize the robustness to uncertainty of a satisfactory outcome. That is, robust satisficing asks, “what is a ‘good enough’ outcome,” and then seeks the option that will produce such an outcome under the widest set of circumstances. We explore the conditions under which robust satisficing is a more appropriate norm for decision making than utility maximizing.     

The choice axiom,revealed preference,and the theory of demand

The paper relates the classical economic theory of consumer demand to Luce's well-known general theory of choice behaviour. After discussing some fundamental similarities between the two theories, a simplified variant of Luce's probabilistic theory is used as an aid to construct, by analogy, a generalization of the classical theory of demand. In the light of Luce's theory it is then examined in what sense the representative demand of the uncertain consumer will coincide with the demand that maximizes utility, and in what sense it will coincide with classical demand.     

Distributive justice of bargaining and risk sensitivity

In this paper we will point out some possibilities and limitations of the discussion of distributive justice by bargaining in the classical bargaining models.We start by considering a kind of bargaining situation where two persons with different risk aversions have to distribute a given quantity of a certain good. Then we define a model in which two bargaining situations are compared. In both situations two persons divide a quantity of a certain good; in the second situation one of the persons, say person 2, is replaced by a more risk averse person. From a well-known theorem of Kihlstrom, Roth and Schmeidler it follows that in the Nash solution, the Kalai-Smorodinsky solution and the Maschler-Perles solution person 1 prefers the situation with the more risk averse opponent.In both classes of problems the judgement of distributive justice is impossible because of an informational poverty of the classical bargaining model. We propose to integrate changes in the economic situation of the persons into the model.Therefore, in a third step, we compare two distributive situations, where differences in the situations are implied by changes in the initial endowments of the persons. Under the assumption that each person has a decreasing local risk aversion, we show that every reallocation of the initial endowments is enlarged or at least preserved by risk sensitive bargaining solutions. This fact has some significance for the discussion of distributive justice in social decision making by bargaining.     

Two-person sequential bargaining behavior with exogenous breakdown

We examine bargaining behavior in a noncooperative game in which players alternate in making and responding to proposals over the division of a given surplus. Although the number of bargaining periods is unlimited and time is not discounted, the bargaining is subject to exogenous breakdown at each period with a fixed probability which is common knowledge. We manipulate three probabilities of break-down in a between-subjects design that allows comparison with previous studies of two-person bargaining with time discounting. Assuming that subjects maximize expected utility, and this utility is measured by monetary payoffs, our results reject both the subgame perfect equilibrium and equal split solutions. Data analyses reveal that a substantial percentage of subjects behave adaptively in that they systematically search for the highest acceptable demands.     

Maximizing expected utility is a survival criterion

The conventional expected utility of a lottery establishes a tight myopic lower bound on the probability of indefinitely avoiding economic ruin, the probability of survival. The analysis presented assumes that the decision maker is able to decline lotteries that are unacceptable in the expected utility sense. Application of the result to the assessment of utility functions is discussed.     

Does Learning Diminish Violations of Independence, Coalescing and Monotonicity?

Violations of expected utility theory are sometimes attributed to imprecise preferences interacting with a lack of learning opportunity in the experimental laboratory. This paper reports an experimental test of whether a learning opportunity which engenders accurate probability assessments, by enhancing understanding of the meaning of stated probability information, causes anomalous behaviour to diminish. The data show that whilst in some cases expected utility maximising behaviour increases with the learning opportunity, so too do systematic violations. Therefore, there should be no presumption that anomalous behaviour under risk is transient and that discovered preferences will be appropriately described by expected utility theory.     

Arbitrage,rationality, and equilibrium

No-arbitrage is the fundamental principle of economic rationality which unifies normative decision theory, game theory, and market theory. In economic environments where money is available as a medium of measurement and exchange, no-arbitrage is synonymous with subjective expected utility maximization in personal decisions, competitive equilibria in capital markets and exchange economies, and correlated equilibria in noncooperative games. The arbitrage principle directly characterizes rationality at the market level; the appearance of deliberate optimization by individual agents is a consequence of their adaptation to the market. Concepts of equilibrium behavior in games and markets can thus be reconciled with the ideas that individual rationality is bounded, that agents use evolutionarily-shaped decision rules rather than numerical optimization algorithms, and that personal probabilities and utilities are inseparable and to some extent indeterminate. Risk-neutral probability distributions, interpretable as products of probabilities and marginal utilities, play a central role as observable quantities in economic systems.     

Uncertain discount and hyperbolic preferences

This paper studies the interaction between savagean uncertainty and time preferences. We introduce a variation of the discounted subjective expected utility model, where time preferences are state dependent. Before uncertainty is resolved, the individual is unsure about the discount factor that will be used, even when evaluating certain payoffs. The model can account for the present bias and diminishing impatience, even if the future is discounted geometrically. The present bias disappears when the immediate payoff becomes uncertain. Although preferences are not stationary, choices may be time consistent.