IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wrk/warwec/973.html

Context and Decision: Utility on a Union of Mixture Spaces

Author

Listed:
  • O’Callaghan, Patrick

    (University of Warwick)

Abstract

Suppose a decision-maker is willing to make statements of the form : I prefer to choose alternative a when in context p, than to choose alternative b when in context q”. Contexts p and q may refer to given probability distributions over a set of states, and b and c to alternatives such as: “turn left” or “turn right” at a junction. In such decision problems, the set of alternatives is discrete and there is a continuum of possible contexts. I assume there is a is a mixture operation on the space of contexts (eg. convex combinations of lotteries), and propose a model that defines preferences over a collection of mixture spaces indexed by a discrete set. The model yields a spectrum of possibilities: some decision-makers are well represented by a standard von Neumann–Morgenstern type of utility function; whilst for others, utility across some or all the mixture spaces is only ordinally comparable. An application to the decision problem of Karni and Safra (2000) leads to a generalization, and shows that state-dependence and comparability are distinct concepts. A final application provides a novel way modeling incomplete preferences and explaining the Allais paradox.

Suggested Citation

  • O’Callaghan, Patrick, 2011. "Context and Decision: Utility on a Union of Mixture Spaces," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 973, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:wrk:warwec:973
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/research/workingpapers/2011/twerp_973.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Karni, Edi & Safra, Zvi, 2000. "An extension of a theorem of von Neumann and Morgenstern with an application to social choice theory," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 315-327, November.
    2. Kevin W. S. Roberts, 1980. "Interpersonal Comparability and Social Choice Theory," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 47(2), pages 421-439.
    3. Vind, Karl, 1991. "Independent preferences," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 119-135.
    4. Dubra, Juan & Maccheroni, Fabio & Ok, Efe A., 2004. "Expected utility theory without the completeness axiom," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 118-133, March.
    5. Mas-Colell, Andreu & Whinston, Michael D. & Green, Jerry R., 1995. "Microeconomic Theory," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195102680.
    6. Blackorby, Charles & Donaldson, David & Weymark, John A, 1984. "Social Choice with Interpersonal Utility Comparisons: A Diagrammatic Introduction," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 25(2), pages 327-356, June.
    7. Itzhak Gilboa & D. Schmeidler, 2003. "Expected Utility in the Context of a Game," Post-Print hal-00752136, HAL.
    8. Hammond, Peter J, 1989. "Consistent Plans, Consequentialism, and Expected Utility," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(6), pages 1445-1449, November.
    9. Itzhak Gilboa & David Schmeidler, 1995. "Case-Based Decision Theory," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 110(3), pages 605-639.
    10. Gilboa,Itzhak & Schmeidler,David, 2001. "A Theory of Case-Based Decisions," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521802345, January.
    11. Morris, Stephen & Ui, Takashi, 2004. "Best response equivalence," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 260-287, November.
    12. Gilboa,Itzhak, 2009. "Theory of Decision under Uncertainty," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521517324, January.
    13. Peter C. Fishburn, 1980. "Multilinear Expected Utility," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 5(4), pages 502-509, November.
    14. 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).
    15. Philippe Mongin, 2001. "A note on mixture sets in decision theory," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 24(1), pages 59-69, May.
    16. Rubinstein,Ariel, 2000. "Economics and Language," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521789905, January.
    17. Fishburn, P. C., 1981. "An axiomatic characterization of skew-symmetric bilinear functionals, with applications to utility theory," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 311-313.
    18. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    19. Gerard Debreu, 1959. "Topological Methods in Cardinal Utility Theory," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 76, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    20. repec:bla:econom:v:48:y:1981:i:191:p:235-50 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 2003. "A derivation of expected utility maximization in the context of a game," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 172-182, July.
    22. Edi Karni, 2009. "A theory of medical decision making under uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 1-16, August.
    23. Dekel, Eddie, 1986. "An axiomatic characterization of preferences under uncertainty: Weakening the independence axiom," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 304-318, December.
    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. O'Callaghan, Patrick, 2011. "Context and Decision: Utility on a Union of Mixture Spaces," Economic Research Papers 270751, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.
    2. Gilboa, Itzhak & Samuelson, Larry & Schmeidler, David, 2013. "Dynamics of inductive inference in a unified framework," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(4), pages 1399-1432.
    3. O'Callaghan, Patrick, 2016. "Measuring utility without mixing apples and oranges and eliciting beliefs about stock prices," MPRA Paper 69363, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Belianin, A., 2017. "Face to Face to Human Being: Achievements and Challenges of Behavioral Economics," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 34(2), pages 166-175.
    5. O'Callaghan, Patrick, "undated". "Ordinal, nonlinear context dependence," Risk and Sustainable Management Group Working Papers 152450, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    6. O’Callaghan, Patrick H., 2018. "Axioms for measuring utility on partial mixture sets," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 76-86.
    7. O'Callaghan, Patrick, 2017. "Axioms for Measuring without mixing apples and Oranges," MPRA Paper 81196, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. d'Aspremont, Claude & Gevers, Louis, 2002. "Social welfare functionals and interpersonal comparability," Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, in: K. J. Arrow & A. K. Sen & K. Suzumura (ed.), Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 10, pages 459-541, Elsevier.
    9. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.
    10. Takao Asano & Hiroyuki Kojima, 2019. "Consequentialism and dynamic consistency in updating ambiguous beliefs," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 68(1), pages 223-250, July.
    11. Massimiliano Amarante, 2015. "Analogy in Decision Making," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 40(4), pages 1027-1041, October.
    12. Millner, Antony & Dietz, Simon & Heal, Geoffrey, 2010. "Ambiguity and climate policy," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 37595, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. Chambers, Christopher P. & Hayashi, Takashi, 2012. "Choice and individual welfare," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 147(5), pages 1818-1849.
    14. Eddie Dekel & Barton L. Lipman, 2010. "How (Not) to Do Decision Theory," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 2(1), pages 257-282, September.
    15. Costis Skiadas, 1991. "Conditioning and Aggregation of Preferences," Discussion Papers 1010, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    16. Basu, Kaushik & Mitra, Tapan, 2007. "Utilitarianism for infinite utility streams: A new welfare criterion and its axiomatic characterization," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 133(1), pages 350-373, March.
    17. Grechuk, Bogdan & Zabarankin, Michael, 2018. "Direct data-based decision making under uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 267(1), pages 200-211.
    18. Robert G. Chambers & Tigran Melkonyan & John Quiggin, 2022. "Incomplete preferences, willingness to pay, and willingness to accept," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 74(3), pages 727-761, October.
    19. Christian Schmidt, 2006. "Quelques points de rencontre entre économistes et psychologues," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 57(2), pages 242-257.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    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:wrk:warwec:973. 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: Margaret Nash (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dewaruk.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.