IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/xrs/sfbmaa/08-32.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Case-Based Expected Utility: Preferences over Actions and Data

Author

Listed:
  • Eichberger, Jürgen

    (Sonderforschungsbereich 504)

  • Guerdjikova, Ani

    (Cornell University)

Abstract

We consider a decision-situation in which the available information is given by a data-set. The decision-maker can express preferences over data-set-action pairs. In particular, he can compare different actions given the available information contained in a data-set and also different data-sets w.r.t. to the evidence they give in support of the choice of a given action. Three characteristics of a data-set can be used to evaluate the evidence it provides with respect to the payoff of a given action: the frequency of observations, the number of observations and the relevance of observations to the action under consideration. We state axioms, which ensure that the decision maker is indifferent among data-sets with identical frequencies, but different lengths. We then provide an expected utility representation of preferences, in which the beliefs of the decision maker about the outcome of a given action can be expressed as similarity-weighted frequencies of observed cases, as in BGSS (2005). The similarity weights reflect the subjectively perceived relevance of observations for the specific action.

Suggested Citation

  • Eichberger, Jürgen & Guerdjikova, Ani, 2008. "Case-Based Expected Utility: Preferences over Actions and Data," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 08-32, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    • Handle: RePEc:xrs:sfbmaa:08-32
    Note: Financial support from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, SFB 504, at the University of Mannheim, is gratefully acknowledged.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sfb504.uni-mannheim.de/publications/dp08-32.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gajdos, T. & Hayashi, T. & Tallon, J.-M. & Vergnaud, J.-C., 2008. "Attitude toward imprecise information," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 140(1), pages 27-65, May.
    2. David Easley & Aldo Rustichini, 1999. "Choice without Beliefs," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 67(5), pages 1157-1184, September.
    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. Eichberger, Jürgen & Guerdjikova, Ani, 2010. "Case-based belief formation under ambiguity," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 161-177, November.

    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. Eichberger, Jürgen & Guerdjikova, Ani, 2008. "Case-based expected utility : preferences over actions and data," Papers 08-32, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    2. ,, 2014. "Second order beliefs models of choice under imprecise risk: non-additive second order beliefs vs. nonlinear second order utility," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 9(3), September.
    3. James K. Hammitt, 2020. "Valuing mortality risk in the time of COVID-19," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 129-154, October.
    4. Federica Ceron & Vassili Vergopoulos, 2020. "Recursive objective and subjective multiple priors," Post-Print halshs-02900497, HAL.
    5. Jewitt, Ian & Mukerji, Sujoy, 2017. "Ordering ambiguous acts," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 213-267.
    6. Hippolyte d’Albis & Emmanuel Thibault, 2018. "Ambiguous life expectancy and the demand for annuities," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 85(3), pages 303-319, October.
    7. Jingyi Xue, 2020. "Preferences with changing ambiguity aversion," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 69(1), pages 1-60, February.
    8. repec:esx:essedp:770 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Chambers, Christopher P. & Hayashi, Takashi, 2010. "Bayesian consistent belief selection," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(1), pages 432-439, January.
    10. Junyi Chai & Zhiquan Weng & Wenbin Liu, 2021. "Behavioral Decision Making in Normative and Descriptive Views: A Critical Review of Literature," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-14, October.
    11. Marciano Siniscalchi, 2009. "Vector Expected Utility and Attitudes Toward Variation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(3), pages 801-855, May.
    12. Sergei Pechersky, 2015. "A note on external angles of the core of convex TU games, marginal worth vectors and the Weber set," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 44(2), pages 487-498, May.
    13. Théodora Dupont-Courtade, 2012. "Insurance demand under ambiguity and conflict for extreme risks: Evidence from a large representative survey," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 12020, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    14. Yehuda Izhakian, 2012. "Ambiguity Measurement," Working Papers 12-01, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics.
    15. John Dickhaut & Radhika Lunawat & Kira Pronin & Jack Stecher, 2011. "Decision making and trade without probabilities," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 48(2), pages 275-288, October.
    16. Thibault Gajdos & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud, 2013. "Decisions with conflicting and imprecise information," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 41(2), pages 427-452, July.
    17. Anna Conte & John D. Hey, 2018. "Assessing multiple prior models of behaviour under ambiguity," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 7, pages 169-188, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    18. Brian Hill, 2009. "Confidence and ambiguity," Working Papers hal-00489870, HAL.
    19. Francetich, Alejandro & Kreps, David, 2020. "Choosing a good toolkit, I: Prior-free heuristics," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    20. Robin Cubitt & Gijs van de Kuilen & Sujoy Mukerji, 2020. "Discriminating Between Models of Ambiguity Attitude: a Qualitative Test," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 18(2), pages 708-749.
    21. Sujoy Mukerji & Peter Klibanoff and Kyoungwon Seo, 2011. "Relevance and Symmetry," Economics Series Working Papers 539, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    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:xrs:sfbmaa:08-32. 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: Carsten Schmidt (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sfmande.html .

    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.