IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/gre/wpaper/2012-10.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Social Decision Theory and Non-strategic Behaviour

Author

Listed:
  • Dino Borie

Abstract

Using the Expected Utility framework, this paper develops a general model of other-regarding preferences under risk. I assume that in addition to conventional preferences over outcomes, individuals could have preferences over outcomes of their peers. Decision makers with other-regarding preferences may show a concern for risk; that is they may care not just about what the outcomes of others are but also the risks taken by the others. In our representation, we separate a self-regarding component of the decision maker's preferences from another regarding component. The self-regarding component is represented by a \von Neumann-Morgenstern utility function". The other regarding component is an expected social value function which depends on the social interactions between decision maker and the others.

Suggested Citation

  • Dino Borie, 2012. "Social Decision Theory and Non-strategic Behaviour," GREDEG Working Papers 2012-10, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    • Handle: RePEc:gre:wpaper:2012-10
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://195.220.198.217/GREDEG-WP-2012-10.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2012
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Segal, Uzi & Sobel, Joel, 2007. "Tit for tat: Foundations of preferences for reciprocity in strategic settings," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 136(1), pages 197-216, September.
    2. Efe A. Ok & Levent KoÚkesen, 2000. "Negatively interdependent preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 17(3), pages 533-558.
    3. Forsythe Robert & Horowitz Joel L. & Savin N. E. & Sefton Martin, 1994. "Fairness in Simple Bargaining Experiments," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 347-369, May.
    4. Edi Karni & Zvi Safra, 2002. "Individual Sense of Justice: A Utility Representation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(1), pages 263-284, January.
    5. Fabio Maccheroni & Massimo Marinacci & Aldo Rustichini, 2012. "Social Decision Theory: Choosing within and between Groups," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 79(4), pages 1591-1636.
    6. Guth, Werner & Schmittberger, Rolf & Schwarze, Bernd, 1982. "An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 367-388, December.
    7. Candeal, Juan C. & Indurain, Esteban & Mehta, Ghanshyam B., 2004. "Utility functions on locally connected spaces," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 701-711, September.
    8. Faruk Gul & Wolfgang Pesendorfer, 2005. "The Canonical Type Space for Interdependent Preferences," Levine's Bibliography 784828000000000434, UCLA Department of Economics.
    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. Martin Sandbu, 2008. "Axiomatic foundations for fairness-motivated preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 31(4), pages 589-619, December.
    2. Fabio Maccheroni & Massimo Marinacci & Aldo Rustichini, 2012. "Social Decision Theory: Choosing within and between Groups," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 79(4), pages 1591-1636.
    3. Alon, Shiri & Lehrer, Ehud, 2020. "Subjective utilitarianism: Individual decisions in a social context," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    4. Ahrens, Steffen & Snower, Dennis J., 2014. "Envy, guilt, and the Phillips curve," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 69-84.
    5. Joel Sobel, 2009. "Generous actors, selfish actions: markets with other-regarding preferences," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 56(1), pages 3-16, March.
    6. Kircher, Philipp & Sandroni, Alvaro & Ludwig, Sandra, 2009. "Fairness: A Critique to the Utilitarian Approach," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 288, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
    7. Lopomo, Giuseppe & Ok, Efe A, 2001. "Bargaining, Interdependence, and the Rationality of Fair Division," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(2), pages 263-283, Summer.
    8. Giuseppe Lopomo & Efe A Ok, 2004. "Bargaining, Interdependence and the Rationality of Fair Division," Levine's Bibliography 122247000000000395, UCLA Department of Economics.
    9. Alexander Vostroknutov, 2013. "Preferences over consumption and status," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 74(4), pages 509-537, April.
    10. Burnham, Terence C., 2013. "Toward a neo-Darwinian synthesis of neoclassical and behavioral economics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 90(S), pages 113-127.
    11. Burks, Stephen V. & Carpenter, Jeffrey P. & Verhoogen, Eric, 2003. "Playing both roles in the trust game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 195-216, June.
    12. Seema Kacker & Tin Aung & Dominic Montagu & David Bishai, 2021. "Providers preferences towards greater patient health benefit is associated with higher quality of care," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 271-294, September.
    13. Liqi Zhu & Gerd Gigerenzer & Gang Huangfu, 2013. "Psychological Traces of China's Socio-Economic Reforms in the Ultimatum and Dictator Games," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-6, August.
    14. John A. List, 2007. "On the Interpretation of Giving in Dictator Games," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 115(3), pages 482-493.
    15. Sabrina Teyssier, 2012. "Inequity and risk aversion in sequential public good games," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 151(1), pages 91-119, April.
    16. Andreoni,J. & Castillo,M. & Petrie,R., 2000. "What do bargainers' preferences look like? : exploring a convex ultimatum game," Working papers 25, Wisconsin Madison - Social Systems.
    17. Gary Bolton & Duncan Fong & Paul Mosquin, 2003. "Bayes Factors with an Application to Experimental Economics," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 6(3), pages 311-325, November.
    18. Sun-Ki Chai & Dolgorsuren Dorj & Katerina Sherstyuk, 2018. "Cultural Values and Behavior in Dictator, Ultimatum, and Trust Games: An Experimental Study," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Experimental Economics and Culture, volume 20, pages 89-166, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    19. Clare Anderson & David L. Dickinson, 2009. "Bargaining and Trust: The Effects of 36hr Total Sleep Deprivation on Socially Interactive Decisions," Working Papers 09-01, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    20. Takeuchi, Ai & Veszteg, Róbert F. & Kamijo, Yoshio & Funaki, Yukihiko, 2022. "Bargaining over a jointly produced pie: The effect of the production function on bargaining outcomes," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 169-198.

    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:gre:wpaper:2012-10. 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: Patrice Bougette (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/credcfr.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.