IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwpga/0509002.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A language for the construction of preferences under uncertainty

Author

Listed:
  • Marco LiCalzi

    (University of Venice, Italy)

Abstract

This paper studies a target-based procedure to rank lotteries that is normatively and observationally equivalent to the expected utility model. In view of this equivalence, the traditional utility-based language for decision making may be substituted with an alternative target-based language. Switching language may have significant modelling consequences. To exemplify, we contrast the utility-based viewpoint of prospect theory against the target-based viewpoint and provide an explanation of Allais’ paradox based on context dependence instead of distorted probabilities.

Suggested Citation

  • Marco LiCalzi, 2005. "A language for the construction of preferences under uncertainty," Game Theory and Information 0509002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpga:0509002
    Note: Type of Document - pdf; pages: 21. 25 pages, pdf
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de/econ-wp/game/papers/0509/0509002.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Manski, Charles F., 1986. "Ordinal Utility Models Of Decision Making Under Uncertainty," SSRI Workshop Series 292682, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Social Systems Research Institute.
    2. Yaari, Menahem E, 1987. "The Dual Theory of Choice under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(1), pages 95-115, January.
    3. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    4. Eldar Shafir & Peter Diamond & Amos Tversky, 1997. "Money Illusion," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 112(2), pages 341-374.
    5. Marvin H. Berhold, 1973. "The Use of Distribution Functions to Represent Utility Functions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(7), pages 825-829, March.
    6. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    7. Erio Castagnoli & Marco LiCalzi, 2005. "Expected utility without utility," Game Theory and Information 0508004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Karl Borch, 1968. "Decision Rules Depending On The Probability Of Ruin," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 1-10.
    9. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    10. Machina, Mark J, 1982. ""Expected Utility" Analysis without the Independence Axiom," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(2), pages 277-323, March.
    11. Gul, Faruk, 1991. "A Theory of Disappointment Aversion," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(3), pages 667-686, May.
    12. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
    13. Robert Bordley & Marco LiCalzi, 2000. "Decision analysis using targets instead of utility functions," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 23(1), pages 53-74.
    14. Drazen Prelec, 1998. "The Probability Weighting Function," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 497-528, May.
    15. C. West Churchman & Russell L. Ackoff, 1954. "An Approximate Measure of Value," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 2(2), pages 172-187, May.
    16. Marco LiCalzi, 2000. "Upper and lower bounds for expected utility," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 16(2), pages 489-502, September.
    17. 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.
    18. DellaVigna, Stefano & LiCalzi, Marco, 2001. "Learning to make risk neutral choices in a symmetric world," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 19-37, January.
    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. Robert Bordley & Marco Licalzi & Luisa Tibiletti, 2017. "A Target-Based Foundation for the “Hard-Easy Effect” Bias," Eurasian Studies in Business and Economics, in: Mehmet Huseyin Bilgin & Hakan Danis & Ender Demir & Ugur Can (ed.), Country Experiences in Economic Development, Management and Entrepreneurship, pages 659-671, Springer.
    2. Lorenzo Bastianello & Marco LiCalzi, 2015. "Target-based solutions for Nash bargaining," Working Papers 5, Department of Management, Università Ca' Foscari Venezia.
    3. DellaVigna, Stefano & LiCalzi, Marco, 2001. "Learning to make risk neutral choices in a symmetric world," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 19-37, January.
    4. Lorenzo Bastianello & Marco LiCalzi, 2019. "The Probability to Reach an Agreement as a Foundation for Axiomatic Bargaining," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(3), pages 837-865, May.
    5. Sergiy Gerasymchuk, 2007. "Mean-Variance Portfolio Selection with Reference Dependent Preferences," Working Papers 150, Department of Applied Mathematics, Università Ca' Foscari Venezia.

    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. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1324-1369 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. 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.
    3. Upravitelev, A., 2023. "Neoclassical roots of behavioral economics," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 58(1), pages 110-140.
    4. LiCalzi, Marco & Sorato, Annamaria, 2006. "The Pearson system of utility functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 172(2), pages 560-573, July.
    5. Border, Kim C. & Segal, Uzi, 1997. "Coherent Odds and Subjective Probability," University of Western Ontario, Departmental Research Report Series 9717, University of Western Ontario, Department of Economics.
    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. Krzysztof Kontek, 2018. "Boundary effects in the Marschak-Machina triangle," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(6), pages 587-606, November.
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:6:p:587-606 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Zvi Safra & Uzi Segal, 2005. "Are Universal Preferences Possible? Calibration Results for Non-Expected Utility Theories," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 633, Boston College Department of Economics.
    10. Grant, Simon & Kajii, Atsushi, 1998. "AUSI expected utility: An anticipated utility theory of relative disappointment aversion," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 277-290, November.
    11. Matthew D. Rablen, 2023. "Loss Aversion, Risk Aversion, and the Shape of the Probability Weighting Function," Working Papers 2023013, The University of Sheffield, Department of Economics.
    12. Robert Bordley & Marco Licalzi & Luisa Tibiletti, 2017. "A Target-Based Foundation for the “Hard-Easy Effect” Bias," Eurasian Studies in Business and Economics, in: Mehmet Huseyin Bilgin & Hakan Danis & Ender Demir & Ugur Can (ed.), Country Experiences in Economic Development, Management and Entrepreneurship, pages 659-671, Springer.
    13. 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.
    14. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Vitalie Spinu, 2020. "Searching for the Reference Point," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 93-112, January.
    15. David B. BROWN & Enrico G. DE GIORGI & Melvyn SIM, 2009. "A Satiscing Alternative to Prospect Theory," Swiss Finance Institute Research Paper Series 09-19, Swiss Finance Institute.
    16. Rablen, Matthew D., 2019. "Foundations of the Rank-Dependent Probability Weighting Function," IZA Discussion Papers 12701, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. Haim Levy, 2008. "First Degree Stochastic Dominance Violations: Decision Weights and Bounded Rationality," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(528), pages 759-774, April.
    18. Thomas Epper & Helga Fehr-Duda, 2012. "The missing link: unifying risk taking and time discounting," ECON - Working Papers 096, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Oct 2018.
    19. 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.
    20. Jean Baccelli, 2018. "Risk attitudes in axiomatic decision theory: a conceptual perspective," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(1), pages 61-82, January.
    21. Liang Zou, 2006. "An Alternative to Prospect Theory," Annals of Economics and Finance, Society for AEF, vol. 7(1), pages 1-28, May.
    22. Miljkovic, Dragan, 2005. "Rational choice and irrational individuals or simply an irrational theory: A critical review of the hypothesis of perfect rationality," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 621-634, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    expected utility; prospect theory; target-based decisions; choice anomalies; benchmarking;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C7 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory
    • D8 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:wpa:wuwpga:0509002. 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: EconWPA (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de .

    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.