1 / 11

Is Expected Utility a Good Descriptive (Positive) Theory?

Is Expected Utility a Good Descriptive (Positive) Theory?. Based on “Prospect Theory” by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, Econometrica 1979; David Kreps “Notes on The Theory of Choice”. Von Neumann Morgenstern Axioms.

titus
Download Presentation

Is Expected Utility a Good Descriptive (Positive) Theory?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Is Expected Utility a Good Descriptive (Positive) Theory? Based on “Prospect Theory” by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, Econometrica 1979; David Kreps “Notes on The Theory of Choice”

  2. Von Neumann Morgenstern Axioms • Let L be the set of (simple) lotteries over the set of consequences (outcomes) C={x_1,..,x_N}. • L=(p_1,..,p_N) in Δ^{N-1} is a typical lottery. • Let a degenerate lottery with associated probability 1 on outcome x_i be denoted by L_{x_{i}}.

  3. Von Neumann Morgenstern Axioms (Z,X,Y in L) • Reduction of compound lotteries: Z=pX+(1-p)Y implies qX+(1-q)Z~(q+(1-q)p)X+(1-q)(1-p)Y 2. Continuity: Z≽X≽Y implies there is a unique p:X~pZ+(1-p)Y 3. Independence: X~Y implies pX+(1-p)Z~pY+(1-p)Z

  4. Von Neumann Morgenstern Axioms (Z,X,Y in L) 4. Existence of the Best and the worst lottery There are lotteries B,W: for any lottery X B≽X≽W 5. Monotonicity p>q implies pB+(1-p)W≻qB+(1-q)W

  5. Choose between A: 2500 with probability .33 2400 with probability .66 0 with probability .01 B 2400 with certainty 1. A variation of Allais’s ParadoxWhich Axiom is Violated Here?(N=72) 82%

  6. Choose between C: 2500 with probability .33 0 with probability .67 D 2400 with probability .34 0 with probability .66 1. A variation of Allais’s ParadoxWhich Axiom is Violated Here?(N=72) 82%

  7. 2. Which Axiom is Violated Here? • Consider a two-stage game. Stage 1. • With probability .75 prize is 0 • With probability .25 stage 2 takes place. Stage 2. Choose between • 4000 with prob .8 • 3000 for sure 78%

  8. 2. Which Axiom is Violated Here? • The same subjects were to choose between two lotteries • C: (4000, .2) • D: (3000, .25) 65%

  9. In addition to whatever you own you have been given 1000. Choose between A: (1000, ½) B: (500,1) In addition to whatever you own you have been given 2000. Choose between C: (-1000, ½) D: (-500,1) 3. Representation of Outcomes 69% 84%

  10. 4. Another Axiom Violation? • Choose from A: $10 for sure B: • $1000 with probability p • Death with probability 1-p Is there such 1>p>0 that will make you choose B?

  11. HW assignment • You start up a company named “Normative, Inc.” • You can get a loan from a bank (a start-up fund) and a randomization device (a roulette). • Construct a sequence of lotteries for the subjects described in Examples 1-3 (who violate the Axioms) to make sure you “win” money with certainty.

More Related