IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/theord/v77y2014i1p85-110.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sequential decision making without independence: a new conceptual approach

Author

Listed:
  • A. Nebout

Abstract

This paper presents a critical reflection on dynamic consistency as commonly used in economics and decision theory, and on the difficulty to test it experimentally. It distinguishes between the uses of the term dynamic consistency in order to characterize two different properties: the first accounts for the neutrality of individual preferences towards the timing of resolution of uncertainty whereas the second guarantees that a strategy chosen at the beginning of a sequential decision problem is immune to any reevaluation and will effectively be implemented from then on in the decision problem. Although these two properties are equivalent under expected utility (EU), this is not the case under non-EU. Building on the possible characteristics of individual dynamic preferences under risk, this paper proposes a conceptual categorization, that is experimentally testable, of possible sequential decision making behaviors of non-EU maximizers. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Suggested Citation

  • A. Nebout, 2014. "Sequential decision making without independence: a new conceptual approach," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(1), pages 85-110, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:theord:v:77:y:2014:i:1:p:85-110
    DOI: 10.1007/s11238-013-9387-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11238-013-9387-y
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11238-013-9387-y?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Karni, Edi & Safra, Zvi, 1990. "Behaviorally consistent optimal stopping rules," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 391-402, August.
    2. Gordon B. Hazen, 1987. "Note---Does Rolling Back Decision Trees Really Require the Independence Axiom?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(6), pages 807-809, June.
    3. Volij, Oscar, 1994. "Dynamic consistency, consequentialism and reduction of compound lotteries," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 121-129, October.
    4. McClennen,Edward F., 1990. "Rationality and Dynamic Choice," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521360470, September.
    5. Seidenfeld, Teddy, 1988. "Decision Theory Without “Independence” or Without “Ordering”," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(2), pages 267-290, October.
    6. Karni, Edi & Schmeidler, David, 1991. "Atemporal dynamic consistency and expected utility theory," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 401-408, August.
    7. O'Donoghue, Ted & Rabin, Matthew, 1997. "Doing It Now or Later," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt7t44m5b0, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    8. Antoine Nebout & Dimitri Dubois, 2009. "When Allais meets Ulysses: Dynamic Consistency and the Certainty Effect," Working Papers 09-30, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier, revised Sep 2012.
    9. Matthew Rabin & Ted O'Donoghue, 1999. "Doing It Now or Later," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(1), pages 103-124, March.
    10. R. H. Strotz, 1955. "Myopia and Inconsistency in Dynamic Utility Maximization," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 23(3), pages 165-180.
    11. Nicholas Bardsley & Robin Cubitt & Graham Loomes & Peter Moffatt & Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden, 2009. "Experimental Economics: Rethinking the Rules," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 9074.
    12. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    13. ,, 2011. "Dynamic choice under ambiguity," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 6(3), September.
    14. John D. Hey & Gianna Lotito, 2018. "Naive, resolute or sophisticated? A study of dynamic decision making," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 11, pages 275-299, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    15. Machina, Mark J, 1989. "Dynamic Consistency and Non-expected Utility Models of Choice under Uncertainty," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 27(4), pages 1622-1668, December.
    16. Roland Benabou & Jean Tirole, 2004. "Willpower and Personal Rules," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 112(4), pages 848-886, August.
    17. Edi Karni & Zvi Safra, 1989. "Dynamic Consistency, Revelations in Auctions and the Structure of Preferences," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 56(3), pages 421-433.
    18. Hammond, Peter J, 1989. "Consistent Plans, Consequentialism, and Expected Utility," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(6), pages 1445-1449, November.
    19. Rakesh Sarin & Peter Wakker, 1994. "Folding Back in Decision Tree Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(5), pages 625-628, May.
    20. Cubitt, Robin P & Starmer, Chris & Sugden, Robert, 1998. "Dynamic Choice and the Common Ratio Effect: An Experimental Investigation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 108(450), pages 1362-1380, September.
    21. Irving H. LaValle & Kenneth R. Wapman, 1986. "Note---Rolling Back Decision Trees Requires the Independence Axiom!," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(3), pages 382-385, March.
    22. Nielsen, Thomas D. & Jaffray, Jean-Yves, 2006. "Dynamic decision making without expected utility: An operational approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 226-246, February.
    23. David Laibson, 1997. "Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 443-478.
    24. Kreps, David M & Porteus, Evan L, 1978. "Temporal Resolution of Uncertainty and Dynamic Choice Theory," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(1), pages 185-200, January.
    25. Sarin, Rakesh & Wakker, Peter P, 1998. "Dynamic Choice and NonExpected Utility," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 87-119, November.
    26. Hammond, P.J. & , ., 1987. "Consequentialist foundations for expected utility," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 1987016, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    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. Drouhin, Nicolas, 2015. "A rank-dependent utility model of uncertain lifetime," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 208-224.
    2. A. Nebout & D. Dubois, 2014. "When Allais meets Ulysses: Dynamic axioms and the common ratio effect," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 19-49, February.
    3. Antoine Nebout & Marc Willinger, 2014. "Are Non-Expected Utility individuals really Dynamically Inconsistent? Experimental Evidence," Working Papers 14-08, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier, revised Jul 2014.
    4. Dorian Jullien & Alexandre Truc, 2024. "Towards a History of Behavioral and Experimental Economics in France," GREDEG Working Papers 2024-23, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    5. Gebhard Geiger, 2020. "Conditional non-expected utility preferences induced by mixture of lotteries: a note on the normative invalidity of expected utility theory," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 289(2), pages 431-448, June.

    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. Hammond, Peter J & Zank, Horst, 2013. "Rationality and Dynamic Consistency under Risk and Uncertainty," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 1033, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    2. Nathalie Etchart, 2002. "Adequate Moods for non-eu Decision Making in a Sequential Framework," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 52(1), pages 1-28, February.
    3. John D. Hey & Luca Panaccione, 2018. "Dynamic decision making: what do people do?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 10, pages 235-273, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. A. Nebout & D. Dubois, 2014. "When Allais meets Ulysses: Dynamic axioms and the common ratio effect," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 19-49, February.
    5. Simon Grant & Atsushi Kajii & Ben Polak, 2000. "Preference for Information and Dynamic Consistency," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 263-286, May.
    6. Antoine Nebout & Marc Willinger, 2014. "Are Non-Expected Utility individuals really Dynamically Inconsistent? Experimental Evidence," Working Papers 14-08, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier, revised Jul 2014.
    7. John Hey & Massimo Paradiso., "undated". "Dynamic Choice and Timing-Independence: an experimental investigation," Discussion Papers 99/26, Department of Economics, University of York.
    8. Hill, Brian, 2020. "Dynamic consistency and ambiguity: A reappraisal," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 289-310.
    9. Maria J. Ruiz Martos, 2018. "Sequential Common Consequence Effect and Incentives," ThE Papers 18/04, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    10. Dominiak, Adam & Duersch, Peter & Lefort, Jean-Philippe, 2012. "A dynamic Ellsberg urn experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 625-638.
    11. Bleichrodt, Han & Eichberger, Jürgen & Grant, Simon & Kelsey, David & Li, Chen, 2021. "Testing dynamic consistency and consequentialism under ambiguity," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    12. ,, 2011. "Dynamic choice under ambiguity," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 6(3), September.
    13. Maria J. Ruiz Martos, 2017. "Individual Dynamic Choice Behaviour and the Common Consequence Effect," ThE Papers 17/01, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    14. Rawley Heimer & Zwetelina Iliewa & Alex Imax & Martin Weber, 2021. "Dynamic Inconsistency in Risky Choice: Evidence from the Lab and Field," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 094, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    15. Ludwig, Alexander & Zimper, Alexander, 2006. "Investment behavior under ambiguity: The case of pessimistic decision makers," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 111-130, September.
    16. John D. Hey & Gianna Lotito, 2018. "Naive, resolute or sophisticated? A study of dynamic decision making," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 11, pages 275-299, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    17. Karni, Edi & Maccheroni, Fabio & Marinacci, Massimo, 2015. "Ambiguity and Nonexpected Utility," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications,, Elsevier.
    18. repec:ubc:pmicro:halevy-04-10-29-10-08-43 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Georgalos, Konstantinos, 2021. "Dynamic decision making under ambiguity: An experimental investigation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 28-46.
    20. Groneck, Max & Ludwig, Alexander & Zimper, Alexander, 2024. "Who saves more, the naive or the sophisticated agent?," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 219(C).
    21. André Lapied & Pascal Tocquebeuf, 2007. "Consistent Dynamice Choice And Non-Expected Utility Preferences," Working Papers halshs-00353880, HAL.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Risk; Independence axiom; Dynamic consistency; Consequentialism; Sequential decision making; C91; D81;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    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:kap:theord:v:77:y:2014:i:1:p:85-110. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.