Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dynamic Choice and NonExpected Utility

  • Published:
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper explores how some widely studied classes of nonexpected utility models could be used in dynamic choice situations. A new "sequential consistency" condition is introduced for single-stage and multi-stage decision problems. Sequential consistency requires that if a decision maker has committed to a family of models (e.g., the multiple priors family, the rank-dependent family, or the betweenness family) then he use the same family throughout. Conditions are presented under which dynamic consistency, consequentialism, and sequential consistency can be simultaneously preserved for a nonexpected utility maximizer. An important class of applications concerns cases where the exact sequence of decisions and events, and thus the dynamic structure of the decision problem, is relevant to the decision maker. It is shown that for the multiple priors model, dynamic consistency, consequentialism, and sequential consistency can all be preserved. The result removes the argument that nonexpected utility models cannot be consistently used in dynamic choice situations. Rank-dependent and betweenness models can only be used in a restrictive manner, where deviation from expected utility is allowed in at most one stage.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allais, M. (1953). “Le Comportement de l'Homme Rationnel devant le Risque: Critique des Postulats et Axiomes de l'Ecole Américaine,” Econometrica21, 503-546.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Porath, E., I. Gilboa & D. Schmeidler. (1997). “On the Measurement of Inequality under Uncertainty,” Journal of Economic Theory75, 194-204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernasconi, M. (1994). “Nonlinear Preference and Two-Stage Lotteries: Theories and Evidence,” The Economic Journal104, 54-70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chateauneuf, A. and P.P. Wakker. (1993). “From Local to Global Additive Representation,” Journal of Mathematical Economics22, 523-545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chew, S.H. (1983). “A Generalization of the Quasilinear Mean with Applications to the Measurement of Income Inequality and Decision Theory Resolving the Allais Paradox,” Econometrica51, 1065-1092.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chew, S.H. (1989). “Axiomatic Utility Theories with the Betweenness Property,” Annals of Operations Research19, 273-298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chew, S.H. and L.G. Epstein. (1989). “The Structure of Preferences and Attitudes towards the Timing of the Resolution of Uncertainty,” International Economic Review30, 103-117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chew, S.H., L.G. Epstein, and P.P. Wakker. (1993). “A Unifying Approach to Axiomatic Non-Expected Utility Theories: Corrigenda,” Journal of Economic Theory59, 183-188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damme, E. van. (1983). “Refinements of the Nash Equilibrium Concept.” Springer, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dekel, E. (1986). “An Axiomatic Characterization of Preferences under Uncertainty: Weakening the Independence Axiom,” Journal of Economic Theory40, 304-318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eichberger, J. & S. Grant. (1997). “Dynamically Consistent Preferences with Quadratic Beliefs,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty14, 189-207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eichberger, J. & D. Kelsey. (1996). “Uncertainty Aversion and Dynamic Consistency,” International Economic Review37, 625-640.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elmes, S. and P.J. Reny. (1994). “On the Strategic Equivalence of Extensive Form Games,” Journal of Economic Theory62, 1-23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, L.G. (1992). “Behavior under Risk: Recent Developments in Theory and Applications.” In J.J. Laffont (Ed.), Advances in Economic TheoryII, 1-63, Cambridge University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, L.G. and M. le Breton. (1993). “Dynamically Consistent Beliefs Must be Bayesian,” Journal of Economic Theory61, 1-22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, L.G. and S.E. Zin. (1989). “Substitution, Risk Aversion, and the Temporal Behavior of Consumption and Asset Returns: A Theoretical Framework,” Econometrica57, 937-969.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P.C. (1988). “Nonlinear Preference and Utility Theory.” Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilboa, I. (1987). “Expected Utility with Purely Subjective Non-Additive Probabilities,” Journal of Mathematical Economics16, 65-88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilboa, I. & D. Schmeidler. (1989). “Maxmin Expected Utility with a Non-Unique Prior,” Journal of Mathematical Economics18, 141-153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorman, W.M. (1968). “The Structure of Utility Functions,”Review of Economic Studies35, 367-390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, S. (1995). “Subjective Probability without Eventwise Monotonicity: Or: How Machina's Mom May Also Be Probabilistically Sophisticated,” Econometrica63, 159-189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, S., Kajii, A., and Polak, B. (1998). “Intrinsic Preference for Information,” Journal of Economic Theory, forthcoming.

  • Grant, S., Kajii, A., and Polak, B. (1997). “Temporal Resolution of Uncertainty and Recursive Non-Expected Utility Models,” Working paper no 324, Dept. of Economics, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gul, F. (1991). “A Theory of Disappointment Aversion,” Econometrica59, 667-686.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, P.J. (1988). “Consequentialist Foundations for Expected Utility,” Theory and Decision25, 25-78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazen, G.B. (1987). “Subjectively Weighted Linear Utility,” Theory and Decision23, 261-282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurwicz, L. (1951). “Optimality Criteria for Decision Making under Ignorance,” Cowles Commission Discussion Paper, Statistics, No. 370, mimeographed.

  • Jaffray, J.Y. (1989). “Linear Utility Theory for Belief Functions,” Operations Research Letters8, 107-112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffray, J.Y. (1994). “Dynamic Decision Making with Belief Functions.” InR.R. Yager et al. (Eds), Advances in the Dempster-Shafer Theory of Evidence, 331-352, Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnsen, T.H. & J.B. Donaldson. (1985). “The Structure of Intertemporal Preferences under Uncertainty and Time Consistent Plans,” Econometrica53, 1451-1458.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky. (1979). “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,” Econometrica47, 263-291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karni, E. and Z. Safra. (1990). “Behaviorally Consistent Optimal Stopping Rules,” Journal of Economic Theory51, 391-402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karni, E. and D. Schmeidler. (1990). “Utility Theory with Uncertainty.” InW. Hildenbrand and H. Sonnenschein (Eds.), Handbook of Mathematical Economics4, North-Holland, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klibanoff, P. (1995). “Dynamic Choice with Uncertainty Aversion,” Northwestern University.

  • Kohlberg, E. and J.F. Mertens. (1986). “On the Strategic Stability of Equilbria,” Econometrica54, 1003-1037.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreps, D.M. (1979). “A Representation Theorem for Preference for Flexibility,” Econometrica47, 565-577.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreps, D.M. (1990). “A Course in Microeconomic Theory.” Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreps, D.M. and E. Porteus. (1979). “Temporal Von Neumann-Morgenstern and Induced Preferences,” Journal of Economic Theory20, 81-109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaValle, I.H. (1992). “Small Worlds and Sure Things: Consequentialism by the Back Door.” InW. Edwards (Ed.), Utility Theories: Measurement and Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 109-136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lo, K.C. (1996). “Weighted and Quadratic Models of Choice under Uncertainty,” Economics Letters50, 381-386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R.D. and P.C. Fishburn. (1991). “Rank-and Sign-Dependent Linear Utility Models for Finite First-Order Gambles,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty4, 29-59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R.D. and L. Narens. (1985). “Classification of Concatenation Measurement Structures According to Scale Type,” Journal of Mathematical Psychology29, 1-72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R.D. and D. von Winterfeldt. (1994). “What common Ground Exists for Descriptive, Prescriptive and Normative Utility Theories,” Management Science40, 263-279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machina, M.J. (1989). “Dynamic Consistency and Non-Expected Utility Models of Choice under Uncertainty,” Journal of Economic Literature27, 1622-1688.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machina, M.J. and D. Schmeidler. (1992). “A More Robust Definition of Subjective Probability,” Econometrica60, 745-780.

    Google Scholar 

  • McClennen, E.F. (1990). “Rationality and Dynamic Choice: Foundational Explorations.” Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quiggin, J. (1981). “Risk Perception and Risk Aversion among Australian Farmers,” Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics25, 160-169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarin, R.K. (1992). “What Now for Generalized Utility Theory.” InW. Edwards (Ed.), Utility Theories: Measurement and Applications, 137-163, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarin, R.K. and P.P. Wakker. (1992). “A Simple Axiomatization of Nonadditive Expected Utility,” Econometrica60, 1255-1272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarin, R.K. & P.P. Wakker. (1994). “Folding Back in Decision Tree Analysis,” Management Science40, 625-628.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage, L.J. (1954). “The Foundations of Statistics.” Wiley, New York. (Second edition 1972, Dover, New York.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmeidler, D. (1989). “Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity,” Econometrica57, 571-587.

    Google Scholar 

  • Segal, U. (1987). “The Ellsberg Paradox and Risk Aversion: An Anticipated Utility Approach,” International Economic Review28, 175-202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Segal, U. (1990). “Two-Stage Lotteries without the Reduction Axiom,” Econometrica58, 349-377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selten, R. (1965). “Spieltheoretische Behandlung eines Oligopolmodells mit Nachfragetragheit,” Zeitschrift für die Gesamte Staatswissenschaft12, 301-324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starmer, C. and R. Sugden. (1991). “Does the Random-Lottery Incentive System Elicit True Preferences? An Experimental Investigation,” American Economic Review81, 971-978.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strotz, R.H. (1956). “Myopia and Inconsistency in Dynamic Utility Maximization,” Review of Economic Studies23, 165-180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strotz, R.H. (1957). “The Empirical Implications of a Utility Tree,” Econometrica25, 269-280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. & D. Kahneman. (1992). “Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty5, 297-323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wakker, P.P. (1989). “Additive Representations of Preferences, A New Foundation of Decision Analysis.” Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wakker, P.P. (1990). “Under Stochastic Dominance Choquet-Expected Utility and Anticipated Utility are Identical,” Theory and Decision29, 119-132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wakker, P.P. (1993). “Additive Representations on Rank-Ordered Sets II. The Topological Approach,” Journal of Mathematical Economics22, 1-26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wakker, P.P. (1996). “The Sure-Thing Principle and the Comonotonic Sure-Thing Principle: An Axiomatic Analysis,” Journal of Mathematical Economics25, 213-227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wald, A. (1950). “Statistical Decision Functions.” Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winkler, R.L. (1972). “An Introduction to Bayesian Inference and Decision Theory.” Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Anderson Graduate School of Management, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA

    RAKESH SARIN

  2. Center for Economic Research, Tilburg University, The Netherlands

    PETER P. WAKKER

Authors
  1. RAKESH SARIN
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. PETER P. WAKKER
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

SARIN, R., WAKKER, P.P. Dynamic Choice and NonExpected Utility. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 17, 87–120 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007769628257

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007769628257

Search

Navigation