IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/upf/upfgen/794.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Biased representation of homothetic preferences on homogeneous sets

Author

Abstract

In the homogeneous case of one-dimensional objects, we show that any preference relation that is positive and homothetic can be represented by a quantitative utility function and unique bias. This bias may favor or disfavor the preference for an object. In the first case, preferences are complete but not transitive and an object may be preferred even when its utility is lower. In the second case, preferences are asymmetric and transitive but not negatively transitive and it may not be sufficient for an object to have a greater utility for be preferred. In this manner, the bias reflects the extent to which preferences depart from the maximization of a utility function.

Suggested Citation

  • Marc Le Menestrel & Bertrand Lemaire, 2004. "Biased representation of homothetic preferences on homogeneous sets," Economics Working Papers 794, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    • Handle: RePEc:upf:upfgen:794
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econ-papers.upf.edu/papers/794.pdf
    File Function: Whole Paper
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bertrand Lemaire & Marc Le Menestrel, 2004. "Homothetic interval orders," Economics Working Papers 793, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    2. Amartya Sen, 1997. "Maximization and the Act of Choice," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 65(4), pages 745-780, July.
    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. Marc Le Menestrel & Luk N. Wassenhove, 2016. "Subjectively biased objective functions," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 4(1), pages 73-83, June.
    2. Jones, Martin K., 2015. "Values, Multiculturalism and Representations," 2007 Annual Meeting, July 29-August 1, 2007, Portland, Oregon TN 2015-31, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    3. Marc Le Menestrel, 2003. "A one-shot Prisoners’ Dilemma with procedural utility," Economics Working Papers 819, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    4. Suzumura, Kotaro & Xu, Yongsheng, 2001. "Characterizations of Consequentialism and Nonconsequentialism," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 423-436, December.
    5. Lombardi, Michele & Yoshihara, Naoki, 2013. "Natural implementation with partially honest agents in economic environments," MPRA Paper 48294, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Dolan, Paul & Edlin, Richard & Tsuchiya, Aki & Wailoo, Allan, 2007. "It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it: Characteristics of procedural justice and their importance in social decision-making," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 157-170, September.
    7. Marc Le Menestrel & Luk Van Wassenhove, 2001. "The Domain and Interpretation of Utility Functions: An Exploration," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 329-349, December.
    8. Smith, V. Kerry & Mansfield, Carol, 1998. "Buying Time: Real and Hypothetical Offers," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 209-224, November.
    9. Brandts, Jordi & Sola, Carles, 2001. "Reference Points and Negative Reciprocity in Simple Sequential Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 138-157, August.
    10. V. I. Danilov & A. Lambert-Mogiliansky, 2005. "Non-classical Measurement Theory: a Framework for Behavioral Sciences," Levine's Working Paper Archive 122247000000000899, David K. Levine.
    11. Manzini Paola & Mariotti Marco, 2004. "A Theory of Vague Expected Utility," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 1-17, December.
    12. Cynthia Schuck-Paim & Lorena Pompilio & Alex Kacelnik, 2004. "State-Dependent Decisions Cause Apparent Violations of Rationality in Animal Choice," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(12), pages 1-1, November.
    13. David Soberman & Loïc Sadoulet, 2007. "Campaign Spending Limits and Political Advertising," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(10), pages 1521-1532, October.
    14. Brian Hill, 2012. "Confidence in preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 39(2), pages 273-302, July.
    15. Olivier Thevenon & Philippe Batifoulier, 2003. "L'éthique (médicale) est elle soluble dans le calcul économique?," Post-Print hal-00442960, HAL.
    16. Alan Shiell & Lisa Gold, 2003. "If the price is right: vagueness and values clarification in contingent valuation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(11), pages 909-919, November.
    17. Walter Bossert & Yves Sprumont & Kotaro Suzumura, 2006. "Rationalizability of choice functions on general domains without full transitivity," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 27(3), pages 435-458, December.
    18. Susumu Cato, 2013. "Quasi-decisiveness, quasi-ultrafilter, and social quasi-orderings," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 41(1), pages 169-202, June.
    19. Marc Le Menestrel & Bertrand Lemaire, 2002. "Additive utility with intransitive indifference and without independence: A homogeneous case," Economics Working Papers 628, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    20. Hellwig, Klaus, 2007. "The creation of wealth," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 172-178, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Intransitive preferences; incomplete preferences; irrational behavior; bias; procedural concerns; process of choice;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D00 - Microeconomics - - General - - - General
    • D11 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Theory
    • D21 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Firm Behavior: Theory
    • O22 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Development Planning and Policy - - - Project Analysis

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:upf:upfgen:794. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.econ.upf.edu/ .

    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.