IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/rrsr90/271535.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

What We Know About Decision Making Under Uncertainty And Why We Do Not Use What We Know

Author

Listed:
  • Zilberman, David
  • Buschena, David E.

Abstract

This paper reviews two major approaches used in the past for risk analysis-the expected utility approach and the use of safety rules-and endeavors to reconcile their applicability and use in light of the recent nonexpected utility risk literature. This leads to the identification of several "reduced form" hypotheses that hold under a variety of theoretical structures and to a discussion of some empirical evidence that we have in view of these hypothesis. We conclude that, in spite of the conceptual confusion, we have identified several "down to earth" relationships that allow prediction of outcome and choices under uncertain conditions. Economic studies of choices under uncertainty also established that the expected utility approach is an appropriate normative tool for risk management, especially in cases· where variability associated with risk affects income but may not lead to disastrous situations such as bankruptcy. The major lesson of recent research of individual behavior under uncertainty is that it is not always consistent with the expected utility approach; in short, there is not a generic model for evaluating behavior under uncertainty.

Suggested Citation

  • Zilberman, David & Buschena, David E., 1990. "What We Know About Decision Making Under Uncertainty And Why We Do Not Use What We Know," 1990 Quantifying Long Run Agricultural Risks and Evaluating Farmer Responses to Risk Meeting, January 28-31, 1990, Sanibel Island, Florida 271535, Regional Research Projects > S-232: Quantifying Long Run Agricultural Risks and Evaluating Farmer Responses to Risk.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:rrsr90:271535
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.271535
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/271535/files/SrnRegPrj-026.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/271535/files/SrnRegPrj-026.pdf?subformat=pdfa
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.271535?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David E. Bell, 1982. "Regret in Decision Making under Uncertainty," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(5), pages 961-981, October.
    2. Machina, Mark J, 1982. ""Expected Utility" Analysis without the Independence Axiom," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(2), pages 277-323, March.
    3. Fishburn, P. C., 1981. "An axiomatic characterization of skew-symmetric bilinear functionals, with applications to utility theory," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 311-313.
    4. Yaari, Menahem E, 1987. "The Dual Theory of Choice under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(1), pages 95-115, January.
    5. Chew, Soo Hong, 1983. "A Generalization of the Quasilinear Mean with Applications to the Measurement of Income Inequality and Decision Theory Resolving the Allais Paradox," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 51(4), pages 1065-1092, July.
    6. Rulon D. Pope, 1982. "Empirical Estimation and Use of Risk Preferences: An Appraisal of Estimation Methods That Use Actual Economic Decisions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 64(2), pages 376-383.
    7. Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 1982. "Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice under Uncertainty," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(368), pages 805-824, December.
    8. William Lin & G. W. Dean & C. V. Moore, 1974. "An Empirical Test of Utility vs. Profit Maximization in Agricultural Production," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 56(3), pages 497-508.
    9. Ravid, S Abraham, 1987. "Safety First, Bankruptcy, and the Pricing and Investment Decisions of the Firm," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 25(4), pages 695-706, October.
    10. Feder, Gershon & Just, Richard E., 1977. "A study of debt servicing capacity applying logit analysis," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(1), pages 25-38, February.
    11. Milton Friedman & L. J. Savage, 1948. "The Utility Analysis of Choices Involving Risk," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(4), pages 279-279.
    12. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    13. Chew, S. H. & Epstein, L. G., 1989. "A unifying approach to axiomatic non-expected utility theories," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 207-240, December.
    14. Finkelshtain, Israel & Chalfant, James, 1989. "Portfolio Choices in the Presence of Other Risks," CUDARE Working Papers 198492, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    15. Israel Finkelshtain & James A. Chalfant, 1993. "Portfolio Choices in the Presence of Other Risks," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(8), pages 925-936, August.
    16. Edgardo Moscardi & Alain de Janvry, 1977. "Attitudes Toward Risk Among Peasants: An Econometric Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 59(4), pages 710-716.
    17. Lester G. Telser, 1955. "Safety First and Hedging," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 23(1), pages 1-16.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Charles-Cadogan, G., 2016. "Expected utility theory and inner and outer measures of loss aversion," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 10-20.
    2. Liang Zou, 2006. "An Alternative to Prospect Theory," Annals of Economics and Finance, Society for AEF, vol. 7(1), pages 1-28, May.
    3. Alarie, Yves, 2000. "L’importance de la procédure dans les choix de loteries," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 76(3), pages 321-340, septembre.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1324-1369 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Trabelsi, Mohamed Ali, 2008. "Les nouveaux modèles de décision dans le risque et l’incertain : quel apport ? [The new models of decision under risk or uncertainty: What approach?]," MPRA Paper 83347, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2008.
    6. Belianin, A., 2017. "Face to Face to Human Being: Achievements and Challenges of Behavioral Economics," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 34(2), pages 166-175.
    7. Marc Willinger, 1990. "La rénovation des fondements de l'utilité et du risque," Revue Économique, Programme National Persée, vol. 41(1), pages 5-48.
    8. Xi Zhi Lim, 2021. "Ordered Reference Dependent Choice," Papers 2105.12915, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2024.
    9. Trabelsi, Mohamed Ali, 2006. "Les nouveaux modèles de décision dans le risque et l’incertain : quel apport ? [The new models of decision under risk or uncertainty : What approach?]," MPRA Paper 25442, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Sudeep Bhatia & Graham Loomes & Daniel Read, 2021. "Establishing the laws of preferential choice behavior," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(6), pages 1324-1369, November.
    11. Jean Baccelli, 2018. "Risk attitudes in axiomatic decision theory: a conceptual perspective," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(1), pages 61-82, January.
    12. Raquel M. Gaspar & Paulo M. Silva, 2023. "Investors’ perspective on portfolio insurance," Portuguese Economic Journal, Springer;Instituto Superior de Economia e Gestao, vol. 22(1), pages 49-79, January.
    13. Kam Yu, 2009. "Measuring the Output and Prices of the Lottery Sector: An Application of Implicit Expected Utility Theory," NBER Chapters, in: Price Index Concepts and Measurement, pages 405-425, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Han Bleichrodt & Peter P. Wakker, 2015. "Regret Theory: A Bold Alternative to the Alternatives," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 0(583), pages 493-532, March.
    15. Buschena, David & Zilberman, David, 1992. "Not Just Another Paper Showing Violations of the Expected Utility Model: The Effects of Alternative Similarity on Risky Choice," CUDARE Working Papers 198603, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    16. Trabelsi, Mohamed Ali, 2019. "The new models of decision in risk: A review of the critical literature," MPRA Paper 92693, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2019.
    17. Ormiston, Michael B. & E. Schlee, Edward, 1999. "Comparative statics tests between decision models under risk," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 145-166, October.
    18. Phillips Peter J. & Pohl Gabriela, 2018. "The Deferral of Attacks: SP/A Theory as a Model of Terrorist Choice when Losses Are Inevitable," Open Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 71-85, February.
    19. Raquel M. Gaspar & Paulo M. Silva, 2019. "Investors’ Perspective on Portfolio InsuranceExpected Utility vs Prospect Theories," Working Papers REM 2019/92, ISEG - Lisbon School of Economics and Management, REM, Universidade de Lisboa.
    20. Trabelsi, Mohamed Ali, 2006. "Les Nouveaux Modèles de Décision dans le Risque et l’Incertain : Quel Apport ? [The New Models of Decision Under Risk or Uncertainty : What Approach?]," MPRA Paper 76954, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    21. Blavatskyy, Pavlo R., 2012. "The Troika paradox," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 236-239.

    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:ags:rrsr90:271535. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.