Cardinal versus ordinal criteria in choice under risk with disconnected utility ranges
AbstractThis paper provides a formal justification for the existence of subjective random components intrinsic to the outcome evaluation process of decision makers and explicitly assumed in the stochastic choice literature. We introduce the concepts of admissible error function and generalized certainty equivalent, which allow us to analyze two different criteria, a cardinal and an ordinal one, when defining suitable approximations to expected utility values. Contrary to the standard literature requirements for irrational preferences, adjustment errors arise in a natural way within our setting, their existence following directly from the disconnectedness of the range of the utility functions. Conditions for the existence of minimal errors are also studied. Our results imply that neither the cardinal nor the ordinal criterion do necessarily provide the same evaluation for two or more different prospects with the same expected utility value. As a consequence, a rational decision maker may define two different generalized certainty equivalents when presented with the same prospect in two different occasions.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Elsevier in its journal Journal of Mathematical Economics.
Volume (Year): 47 (2011)
Issue (Month): 4-5 ()
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jmateco
Risk; Certainty equivalent; Connectedness; Error function; Cardinal and ordinal criteria; Prospect valuation;
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Graham Loomes, 2005. "Modelling the Stochastic Component of Behaviour in Experiments: Some Issues for the Interpretation of Data," Experimental Economics, Springer, Springer, vol. 8(4), pages 301-323, December.
- Loomes, Graham & Moffatt, Peter G & Sugden, Robert, 2002.
" A Microeconometric Test of Alternative Stochastic Theories of Risky Choice,"
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer,
Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 103-30, March.
- Loomes, G. & Moffatt, P.G. & Sugden, R., 1998. "A Microeconometric Test of Alternative Stochastic Theories of Risky Choice," University of East Anglia Discussion Papers in Economics, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. 9806, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
- J�rg Rieskamp & Jerome R. Busemeyer & Barbara A. Mellers, 2006. "Extending the Bounds of Rationality: Evidence and Theories of Preferential Choice," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, American Economic Association, vol. 44(3), pages 631-661, September.
- Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 1995. "Incorporating a stochastic element into decision theories," European Economic Review, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 39(3-4), pages 641-648, April.
- Ballinger, T Parker & Wilcox, Nathaniel T, 1997. "Decisions, Error and Heterogeneity," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, Royal Economic Society, vol. 107(443), pages 1090-1105, July.
- Harless, David W & Camerer, Colin F, 1994. "The Predictive Utility of Generalized Expected Utility Theories," Econometrica, Econometric Society, Econometric Society, vol. 62(6), pages 1251-89, November.
- Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 1998. "Testing Different Stochastic Specifications of Risky Choice," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 65(260), pages 581-98, November.
- Mas-Colell, Andreu & Whinston, Michael D. & Green, Jerry R., 1995. "Microeconomic Theory," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, Oxford University Press, number 9780195102680, October.
- John Hey, 2005. "Why We Should Not Be Silent About Noise," Experimental Economics, Springer, Springer, vol. 8(4), pages 325-345, December.
- Loomes, Graham, 1998. "Probabilities vs Money: A Test of Some Fundamental Assumptions about Rational Decision Making," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, Royal Economic Society, vol. 108(447), pages 477-89, March.
- Krahnen, Jan Pieter & Rieck, Christian & Theissen, Erik, 1997. "Inferring risk attitudes from certainty equivalents: Some lessons from an experimental study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 18(5), pages 469-486, September.
- Jonathan W. Leland, 1998. "Similarity Judgments in Choice Under Uncertainty: A Reinterpretation of the Predictions of Regret Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, INFORMS, vol. 44(5), pages 659-672, May.
- Wakker, Peter, 1988. "Continuity of Preference Relations for Separable Topologies," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 29(1), pages 105-10, February.
- Chris Starmer, 2000. "Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, American Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 332-382, June.
- Hey, John D & Orme, Chris, 1994. "Investigating Generalizations of Expected Utility Theory Using Experimental Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, Econometric Society, vol. 62(6), pages 1291-1326, November.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.