IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/joecth/v70y2020i3d10.1007_s00199-019-01225-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Expected utility theory with probability grids and preference formation

Author

Listed:
  • Mamoru Kaneko

    (Waseda University)

Abstract

We reformulate expected utility theory, from the viewpoint of bounded rationality, by introducing probability grids and a cognitive bound; we restrict permissible probabilities only to decimal ( $$\ell $$ ℓ -ary in general) fractions of finite depths up to a given cognitive bound. We distinguish between measurements of utilities from pure alternatives and their extensions to lotteries involving more risks. Our theory is constructive from the viewpoint of the decision maker. When a cognitive bound is small, the preference relation involves many incomparabilities, but these diminish as the cognitive bound is relaxed. Similarly, the EU hypothesis would hold more for a larger bound. The main part of the paper is a study of preferences including incomparabilities in cases with finite cognitive bounds; we give representation theorems in terms of a 2-dimensional vector-valued utility functions. We also exemplify the theory with one experimental result reported by Kahneman and Tversky.

Suggested Citation

  • Mamoru Kaneko, 2020. "Expected utility theory with probability grids and preference formation," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 70(3), pages 723-764, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:joecth:v:70:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s00199-019-01225-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s00199-019-01225-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00199-019-01225-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00199-019-01225-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tai-Wei Hu, 2013. "Expected utility theory from the frequentist perspective," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 53(1), pages 9-25, May.
    2. Gilboa,Itzhak & Schmeidler,David, 2001. "A Theory of Case-Based Decisions," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521802345, January.
    3. Kaneko, Mamoru, 1992. "The Ordered Field Property and a Finite Algorithm for the Nash Bargaining Solution," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 20(3), pages 227-236.
    4. Juan Dubra & Fabio Maccheroni & Efe A. Ok, 2004. "Expected Utility Without the Completeness Axiom," Yale School of Management Working Papers ysm404, Yale School of Management.
    5. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    6. Rubinstein, Ariel, 1988. "Similarity and decision-making under risk (is there a utility theory resolution to the Allais paradox?)," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 145-153, October.
    7. Dubra, Juan & Maccheroni, Fabio & Ok, Efe A., 2004. "Expected utility theory without the completeness axiom," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 118-133, March.
    8. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    9. Mamoru Kaneko & Akihiko Matsui, 1999. "Inductive Game Theory: Discrimination and Prejudices," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 1(1), pages 101-137, January.
    10. J. Jude Kline & Thierry Lavendhomme & Samuel Waltener, 2019. "From memories to inductively derived views: a constructive approach," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 68(2), pages 403-420, September.
    11. Juan Dubra & Efe A. Ok, 2002. "A Model of Procedural Decision Making in the Presence of Risk," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 43(4), pages 1053-1080, November.
    12. Drazen Prelec, 1998. "The Probability Weighting Function," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 497-528, May.
    13. Morton Davis & Michael Maschler, 1965. "The kernel of a cooperative game," Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(3), pages 223-259, September.
    14. Gijs Kuilen & Peter Wakker, 2006. "Learning in the Allais paradox," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 155-164, December.
    15. Kaneko, Mamoru & Nakamura, Kenjiro, 1979. "The Nash Social Welfare Function," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 423-435, March.
    16. Kaneko, Mamoru & Matsui, Akihiko, 1999. "Inductive Game Theory: Discrimination and Prejudices," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 1(1), pages 101-137.
    17. Mamoru Kaneko & J. Jude Kline, 2015. "Understanding the Other Through Social Roles," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(01), pages 1-31.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mamoru Kaneko, 2020. "Toward a Resolution of the St.Petersburg Paradox," Working Papers 2014, Waseda University, Faculty of Political Science and Economics.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mamoru Kaneko, 2019. "Expected Utility Theory with Probability Grids and Preference Formation," Working Papers 1902, Waseda University, Faculty of Political Science and Economics.
    2. Simone Cerreia-Vioglio & Efe A. Ok, 2018. "The Rational Core of Preference Relations," Working Papers 632, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    3. Elena Cettolin & Arno Riedl, 2015. "Revealed Incomplete Preferences under Uncertainty," CESifo Working Paper Series 5359, CESifo.
    4. Ilke Aydogan & Yu Gao, 2020. "Experience and rationality under risk: re-examining the impact of sampling experience," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(4), pages 1100-1128, December.
    5. Cettolin, Elena & Riedl, Arno, 2019. "Revealed preferences under uncertainty: Incomplete preferences and preferences for randomization," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 181(C), pages 547-585.
    6. Eric Danan & Thibault Gajdos & Jean-Marc Tallon, 2015. "Harsanyi's Aggregation Theorem with Incomplete Preferences," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 7(1), pages 61-69, February.
    7. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.
    8. Eric Danan & Thibault Gajdos & Jean-Marc Tallon, 2023. "Tailored recommendations," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 60(1), pages 15-34, January.
    9. Kraus, Alan & Sagi, Jacob S., 2006. "Inter-temporal preference for flexibility and risky choice," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(6), pages 698-709, September.
    10. Buturak, Gökhan & Evren, Özgür, 2017. "Choice overload and asymmetric regret," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(3), September.
    11. Gayer, Gabrielle, 2010. "Perception of probabilities in situations of risk: A case based approach," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 130-143, January.
    12. Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten Igel & Rutström, Elisabet E., 2010. "Behavioral econometrics for psychologists," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 553-576, August.
    13. M. Ali Khan & Metin Uyanık, 2021. "Topological connectedness and behavioral assumptions on preferences: a two-way relationship," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 71(2), pages 411-460, March.
    14. Benjamin Armbruster & Erick Delage, 2015. "Decision Making Under Uncertainty When Preference Information Is Incomplete," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(1), pages 111-128, January.
    15. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1324-1369 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Drapeau, Samuel & Jamneshan, Asgar, 2016. "Conditional preference orders and their numerical representations," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 106-118.
    17. Simone Cerreia-Vioglio & Alfio Giarlotta & Salvatore Greco & Fabio Maccheroni & Massimo Marinacci, 2020. "Rational preference and rationalizable choice," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 69(1), pages 61-105, February.
    18. Arts, Sara & Ong, Qiyan & Qiu, Jianying, 2020. "Measuring subjective decision confidence," MPRA Paper 106811, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Pivato, Marcus, 2009. "Social choice with approximate interpersonal comparisons of well-being," MPRA Paper 17060, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Königsheim, C. & Lukas, M. & Nöth, M., 2019. "Salience theory: Calibration and heterogeneity in probability distortion," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 477-495.
    21. Walter Bossert & Kotaro Suzumura, 2015. "Expected utility without full transitivity," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(4), pages 707-722, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:joecth:v:70:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s00199-019-01225-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.