IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/1701.08567.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Decision structure of risky choice

Author

Listed:
  • Lamb Wubin
  • Naixin Ren

Abstract

As we know, there is a controversy about the decision making under risk between economists and psychologists. We discuss to build a unified theory of risky choice, which would explain both of compensatory and non-compensatory theories. For risky choice, according to cognition ability, we argue that people could not build a continuous and accurate subjective probability world, but several order concepts, such as small, middle and large probability. People make decisions based on information, experience, imagination and other things. All of these things are so huge that people have to prepare some strategies. That is, people have different strategies when facing to different situations. The distributions of these things have different decision structures. More precisely, decision making is a process of simplifying the decision structure. However, the process of decision structure simplifying is not stuck in a rut, but through different path when facing problems repeatedly. It is why preference reversal always happens when making decisions. The most efficient way to simplify the decision structure is calculating expected value or making decisions based on one or two dimensions. We also argue that the deliberation time at least has four parts, which are consist of substitution time, first order time, second order time and calculation time. Decision structure also can simply explain the phenomenon of paradoxes and anomalies. JEL Codes: C10, D03, D81

Suggested Citation

  • Lamb Wubin & Naixin Ren, 2017. "Decision structure of risky choice," Papers 1701.08567, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2017.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1701.08567
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1701.08567
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
    2. 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. Christina Leuker & Thorsten Pachur & Ralph Hertwig & Timothy J. Pleskac, 2019. "Do people exploit risk–reward structures to simplify information processing in risky choice?," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(1), pages 76-94, August.
    2. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2019. "What are axiomatizations good for?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(3), pages 339-359, May.
    3. Liu, Hui-hui & Song, Yao-yao & Liu, Xiao-xiao & Yang, Guo-liang, 2020. "Aggregating the DEA prospect cross-efficiency with an application to state key laboratories in China," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    4. 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.
    5. Aldo Montesano, 2019. "On some aspects of decision theory under uncertainty: rationality, price-probabilities and the Dutch book argument," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 87(1), pages 57-85, July.
    6. Yan Li & David Ahlstrom, 2020. "Risk-taking in entrepreneurial decision-making: A dynamic model of venture decision," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 899-933, September.
    7. Frank van Erp & Niels Vermeer & Daniel van Vuuren, 2013. "Non-financial determinants of retirement," CPB Discussion Paper 243.rdf, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    8. 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.
    9. Vincze, János, 2018. "Szubsztantív vagy ökológiai racionalitás?. A pénzillúzió esete [Substantive or ecological rationality?. A case of the money illusion]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(11), pages 1097-1114.
    10. Martin Koudstaal & Randolph Sloof & Mirjam van Praag, 2016. "Risk, Uncertainty, and Entrepreneurship: Evidence from a Lab-in-the-Field Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 2897-2915, October.
    11. Ranoua Bouchouicha & Peter Martinsson & Haileselassie Medhin & Ferdinand M. Vieider, 2017. "Stake effects on ambiguity attitudes for gains and losses," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 83(1), pages 19-35, June.
    12. S. Larsson & G. R. Chesley, 1986. "An analysis of the auditor's uncertainty about probabilities," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), pages 259-282, March.
    13. Denis Bouyssou & Marc Pirlot, 2008. "On some ordinal models for decision making under uncertainty," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 163(1), pages 19-48, October.
    14. Soo Hong Chew & Junjian Yi & Junsen Zhang & Songfa Zhong, 2016. "Education and anomalies in decision making: Experimental evidence from Chinese adult twins," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 163-200, December.
    15. Basieva, Irina & Khrennikova, Polina & Pothos, Emmanuel M. & Asano, Masanari & Khrennikov, Andrei, 2018. "Quantum-like model of subjective expected utility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 150-162.
    16. Jürgen Eichberger & David Kelsey, 2014. "Optimism And Pessimism In Games," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 55(2), pages 483-505, May.
    17. Gérard Mondello, 2012. "Ambiguity, Agency Relationships and Adverse Selection," Post-Print halshs-00929978, HAL.
    18. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & David Schmeidler, 2004. "Rationality of Belief Or: Why Savage's axioms are neither necessary nor sufficient for rationality, Second Version," PIER Working Paper Archive 07-001, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 03 Jan 2007.
    19. Carlo Zappia, 2008. "Non-Bayesian decision theory ante-litteram: the case of G. L. S. Shackle," Department of Economic Policy, Finance and Development (DEPFID) University of Siena 0408, Department of Economic Policy, Finance and Development (DEPFID), University of Siena.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C10 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - General
    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk 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:arx:papers:1701.08567. 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: http://arxiv.org/ .

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