IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/0802.3300.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Projective Expected Utility

Author

Listed:
  • Pierfrancesco La Mura

Abstract

Motivated by several classic decision-theoretic paradoxes, and by analogies with the paradoxes which in physics motivated the development of quantum mechanics, we introduce a projective generalization of expected utility along the lines of the quantum-mechanical generalization of probability theory. The resulting decision theory accommodates the dominant paradoxes, while retaining significant simplicity and tractability. In particular, every finite game within this larger class of preferences still has an equilibrium.

Suggested Citation

  • Pierfrancesco La Mura, 2008. "Projective Expected Utility," Papers 0802.3300, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:0802.3300
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.3300
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matthew Rabin & Richard H. Thaler, 2013. "Anomalies: Risk aversion," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 27, pages 467-480, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, 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. Haven, Emmanuel & Khrennikova, Polina, 2018. "A quantum-probabilistic paradigm: Non-consequential reasoning and state dependence in investment choice," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 186-197.
    2. Platteau, Jean-Philippe & Ugarte Ontiveros, Darwin, 2021. "Cognitive bias in insurance: Evidence from a health scheme in India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    3. Aloysius, John A., 2005. "Ambiguity aversion and the equity premium puzzle: A re-examination of experimental data on repeated gambles," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 635-655, October.
    4. Fontana, Giuseppe & Gerrard, Bill, 2004. "A Post Keynesian theory of decision making under uncertainty," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 619-637, October.
    5. Jean Desrochers & J. Francois Outreville, 2013. "Uncertainty, Ambiguity and Risk Taking: an experimental investigation of consumer behavior and demand for insurance," ICER Working Papers 10-2013, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
    6. Laurent Denant-Boemont & Olivier L’Haridon, 2013. "La rationalité à l'épreuve de l'économie comportementale," Revue française d'économie, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 0(2), pages 35-89.
    7. Cheng, Andong & Baskin, Ernest, 2021. "Disproportionate redemption discounting: Mental accounting of discounted credit," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 156-163.
    8. Platteau, Jean-Philippe & Ugarte Ontiveros, Darwin, 2017. "Cognitive Bias in Insurance: Evidence from India," CEPR Discussion Papers 12242, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    9. Levon Barseghyan & Francesca Molinari & Ted O'Donoghue & Joshua C. Teitelbaum, 2013. "The Nature of Risk Preferences: Evidence from Insurance Choices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(6), pages 2499-2529, October.
    10. Schmidt, Ulrich & Zank, Horst, 2009. "A simple model of cumulative prospect theory," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(3-4), pages 308-319, March.
    11. Michał Lewandowski, 2017. "Prospect Theory Versus Expected Utility Theory: Assumptions, Predictions, Intuition and Modelling of Risk Attitudes," Central European Journal of Economic Modelling and Econometrics, Central European Journal of Economic Modelling and Econometrics, vol. 9(4), pages 275-321, December.
    12. Terence C. Burnham & Aimee Dunlap & David W. Stephens, 2015. "Experimental Evolution and Economics," SAGE Open, , vol. 5(4), pages 21582440156, November.
    13. 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.
    14. Ferro, Giuseppe M. & Kovalenko, Tatyana & Sornette, Didier, 2021. "Quantum decision theory augments rank-dependent expected utility and Cumulative Prospect Theory," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    15. Ancarani, A. & Di Mauro, C. & D'Urso, D., 2013. "A human experiment on inventory decisions under supply uncertainty," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(1), pages 61-73.
    16. Songjia Fan & Yi Tao & Cong Li, 2022. "Evolutionary rationality of risk preference," Papers 2206.09813, arXiv.org.
    17. Cavatorta, Elisa & Groom, Ben, 2014. "Preferences and Exposure to Shocks: Evidence from a Natural Experiment in Palestine," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100592, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    18. Tuthill, Jonathan W. & Frechette, Darren L., 2002. "Non-Expected Utility Theories: Weighted Expected, Rank Dependent, And Cumulative Prospect Theory Utility," 2002 Conference, April 22-23, 2002, St. Louis, Missouri 19073, NCR-134 Conference on Applied Commodity Price Analysis, Forecasting, and Market Risk Management.
    19. Rhys Bidder & Ian Dew-Becker, 2016. "Long-Run Risk Is the Worst-Case Scenario," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(9), pages 2494-2527, September.
    20. Anne Lavigne, 2006. "Gouvernance et investissement des fonds de pension privés aux Etats-Unis," Working Papers halshs-00081401, HAL.

    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:arx:papers:0802.3300. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.