IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/jecper/v20y2006i1p221-234.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Anomalies: Utility Maximization and Experienced Utility

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Kahneman
  • Richard H. Thaler

Abstract

In this column, we discuss a version of the utility maximization hypothesis that can be tested—and we find that it is false. We review empirical challenges to utility maximization, which return to the old question of whether preferences optimize the experience of outcomes. Much of this work has focused on a necessary condition for utility-maximizing choices: an ability of economic agents to make accurate, or at least unbiased, forecasts of the hedonic outcomes of potential choices. The research we review shows that this condition is not satisfied: people do not always know what they will like; they often make systematic errors in predicting their future experience of outcomes and, as a result, fail to maximize their experienced utility. We discuss four areas in which errors of hedonic forecasting and choice have been documented: 1) where the emotional or motivational state of the agent is very different at t0 and at t1; 2) where the nature of the decision focuses attention on aspects of the outcome that will not be salient when it is actually experienced; 3) when choices are made on the basis of flawed evaluations of past experiences; and 4) when people forecast their future adjustment to new life circumstances.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Kahneman & Richard H. Thaler, 2006. "Anomalies: Utility Maximization and Experienced Utility," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 20(1), pages 221-234, Winter.
  • Handle: RePEc:aea:jecper:v:20:y:2006:i:1:p:221-234
    Note: DOI: 10.1257/089533006776526076
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/089533006776526076
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. George Loewenstein & Ted O'Donoghue & Matthew Rabin, 2003. "Projection Bias in Predicting Future Utility," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 118(4), pages 1209-1248.
    2. Andrew E. Clark & Ed Diener & Yannis Georgellis & Richard E. Lucas, 2008. "Lags And Leads in Life Satisfaction: a Test of the Baseline Hypothesis," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(529), pages 222-243, June.
    3. Daniel Kahneman & Peter P. Wakker & Rakesh Sarin, 1997. "Back to Bentham? Explorations of Experienced Utility," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 112(2), pages 375-406.
    4. Loewenstein, George, 1996. "Out of Control: Visceral Influences on Behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 272-292, March.
    5. Badger, Gary J. & Bickel, Warren K. & Giordano, Louis A. & Jacobs, Eric A. & Loewenstein, George & Marsch, Lisa, 2007. "Altered states: The impact of immediate craving on the valuation of current and future opioids," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 865-876, September.
    6. Read, Daniel & Antonides, Gerrit & van den Ouden, Laura & Trienekens, Harry, 2001. "Which Is Better: Simultaneous or Sequential Choice?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 54-70, January.
    7. Gilovich,Thomas & Griffin,Dale & Kahneman,Daniel (ed.), 2002. "Heuristics and Biases," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521796798.
    8. Gilovich,Thomas & Griffin,Dale & Kahneman,Daniel (ed.), 2002. "Heuristics and Biases," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521792608.
    9. Michael Conlin & Ted O'Donoghue & Timothy J. Vogelsang, 2007. "Projection Bias in Catalog Orders," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(4), pages 1217-1249, September.
    10. Read, Daniel & van Leeuwen, Barbara, 1998. "Predicting Hunger: The Effects of Appetite and Delay on Choice, , , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 189-205, November.
    11. Daniel Ellsberg, 2000. "Risk, Ambiguity and the Savage Axioms," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7605, David K. Levine.
    12. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    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. S. Dellavigna., 2011. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," VOPROSY ECONOMIKI, N.P. Redaktsiya zhurnala "Voprosy Economiki", vol. 5.
    2. Teresa Briz & Andreas Drichoutis & Lisa House, 2015. "Examining projection bias in experimental auctions: the role of hunger and immediate gratification," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 3(1), pages 1-17, December.
    3. Katharina Dowling & Daniel Guhl & Daniel Klapper & Martin Spann & Lucas Stich & Narine Yegoryan, 2020. "Behavioral biases in marketing," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 449-477, May.
    4. Kahneman, Daniel, 2002. "Maps of Bounded Rationality," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2002-4, Nobel Prize Committee.
    5. Lades, Leonhard K., 2012. "Towards an incentive salience model of intertemporal choice," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 833-841.
    6. Sophie Bienenstock & Maïva Ropaul, 2018. "On the benefits of being naive: the choice of contract duration with projection bias," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 469-496, June.
    7. Dainn Wie & Hyoungjong Kim, 2015. "Between Calm and Passion: The Cooling-Off Period and Divorce Decisions in Korea," Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(2), pages 187-214, April.
    8. Breitmoser, Yves, 2019. "Knowing me, imagining you: Projection and overbidding in auctions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 423-447.
    9. Perez Truglia, Ricardo Nicolas, 2009. "On the genesis of Hedonic Adaptation," MPRA Paper 19929, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Bruno Frey & Alois Stutzer, 2014. "Economic Consequences of Mispredicting Utility," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 937-956, August.
    11. Jacobs Martin, 2016. "Accounting for Changing Tastes: Approaches to Explaining Unstable Individual Preferences," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 67(2), pages 121-183, August.
    12. Moschion, Julie & Powdthavee, Nattavudh, 2018. "The welfare implications of addictive substances: A longitudinal study of life satisfaction of drug users," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 206-221.
    13. Martin Binder, 2019. "Soft paternalism and subjective well-being: how happiness research could help the paternalist improve individuals’ well-being," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 539-561, April.
    14. Ted O'Donoghue & Matthew Rabin, 2001. "Risky Behavior among Youths: Some Issues from Behavioral Economics," NBER Chapters, in: Risky Behavior among Youths: An Economic Analysis, pages 29-68, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Breitmoser, Yves, 2017. "Knowing Me, Imagining You:," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 36, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    16. Loewenstein, George & Ubel, Peter A., 2008. "Hedonic adaptation and the role of decision and experience utility in public policy," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(8-9), pages 1795-1810, August.
    17. Michal Skořepa, 2008. "Bližší pohled na užitek maximalizovaný ekonomickými subjekty [A closer look at utility maximised by economic agents]," Politická ekonomie, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2008(2), pages 242-256.
    18. Yaman, F. & Cubi-Molla, P. & Ungureanu, S., 2019. "Which Decision Theory Describes Life Satisfaction Best? Evidence from Annual Panel Data," Working Papers 19/12, Department of Economics, City University London.
    19. Dolan, Paul & Metcalfe, Robert, 2010. "'Oops...I did it again': Repeated focusing effects in reports of happiness," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 732-737, August.
    20. Acland, Dan & Levy, Matthew, 2013. "Naivete, projection bias, and habit formation in gym attendance," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 46827, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    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:aea:jecper:v:20:y:2006:i:1:p:221-234. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aeaaaea.html .

    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: Michael P. Albert (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aeaaaea.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.