IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/theord/v89y2020i4d10.1007_s11238-020-09767-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Explaining satisficing through risk aversion

Author

Listed:
  • Yudistira Permana

    (Universitas Gadjah Mada
    University of York)

Abstract

This paper extends the analysis of the data from the experiment of Hey et al. (Theory and Decision 83(3): 337–353, 2017), which was designed to test Proposition 2 of the theory of Manski (Theory and Decision 83(2): 155–173, 2017). I focus on how the subjects select the aspiration levels when they choose to satisfice, and try to find a better explanation for that story than that of Manski. I assume that the subjects are expected utility (EU) (rather than MiniMax regret) agents and that they think of the payoffs as having a uniform risky (rather than an ambiguous) distribution. I consider two special cases of the EU preferences: CRRA and CARA; and I combine these with two different stories for the stochastic specification of errors: beta and normal. To give a fair comparison in finding a better explanation of the individual behaviour, I also fit the data using Manski’s optimal strategy under both stochastic specifications. I estimate using maximum log likelihood. The estimation is done subject by subject. The results tell us that assuming that the subjects are EU agents and that they see the payoffs as uniformly distributed produces a better statistical explanation than that of Manski. That is the actual aspiration levels are statistically closer to the optimal aspiration levels assuming CRRA and CARA than those of Manski’s prediction. Interestingly, the subjects in the Hey et al. (2017) experiment appear to be risk loving when selecting their aspiration levels.

Suggested Citation

  • Yudistira Permana, 2020. "Explaining satisficing through risk aversion," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 89(4), pages 503-525, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:theord:v:89:y:2020:i:4:d:10.1007_s11238-020-09767-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s11238-020-09767-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11238-020-09767-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11238-020-09767-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Johanna Etner & Meglena Jeleva & Jean‐Marc Tallon, 2012. "Decision Theory Under Ambiguity," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(2), pages 234-270, April.
    2. Johannes Abeler & Armin Falk & Lorenz Goette & David Huffman, 2011. "Reference Points and Effort Provision," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 470-492, April.
    3. Ulrich Schmidt & Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden, 2008. "Third-generation prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 203-223, June.
    4. Botond Kőszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2006. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(4), pages 1133-1165.
    5. John D. Hey & Yudistira Permana & Nuttaporn Rochanahastin, 2018. "When and how to satisfice: an experimental investigation," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 5, pages 121-137, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    6. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Vitalie Spinu, 2020. "Searching for the Reference Point," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 93-112, January.
    7. Charles F. Manski, 2017. "Optimize, satisfice, or choose without deliberation? A simple minimax-regret assessment," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 83(2), pages 155-173, August.
    8. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    9. Aguiar, Victor H. & Kimya, Mert, 2019. "Adaptive stochastic search," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 74-83.
    10. Jack Stecher & Timothy Shields & John Dickhaut (deceased), 2011. "Generating Ambiguity in the Laboratory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(4), pages 705-712, April.
    11. Johanna Etner & Meglena Jeleva & Jean‐Marc Tallon, 2012. "Decision Theory Under Ambiguity," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(2), pages 234-270, April.
    12. Berber Kramer, 2016. "When expectations become aspirations: reference-dependent preferences and liquidity constraints," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 61(4), pages 685-721, April.
    13. Johanna Etner & Meglena Jeleva & Jean-Marc Tallon, 2009. "Decision theory under uncertainty," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00429573, HAL.
    14. Enrico Diecidue & Jeroen van de Ven, 2008. "Aspiration Level, Probability Of Success And Failure, And Expected Utility," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 49(2), pages 683-700, May.
    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. John D. Hey & Yudistira Permana & Nuttaporn Rochanahastin, 2018. "When and how to satisfice: an experimental investigation," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 5, pages 121-137, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. da Silveira, Jaylson Jair & Lima, Gilberto Tadeu, 2021. "Wage inequality as a source of endogenous macroeconomic fluctuations," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 35-52.
    3. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Vitalie Spinu, 2020. "Searching for the Reference Point," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 93-112, January.
    4. Luca Congiu & Ivan Moscati, 2022. "A review of nudges: Definitions, justifications, effectiveness," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(1), pages 188-213, February.
    5. Takao Asano & Hiroko Okudaira & Masaru Sasaki, 2015. "An experimental test of a search model under ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(4), pages 627-637, December.
    6. Carvalho, M., 2012. "Static vs Dynamic Auctions with Ambiguity Averse Bidders," Other publications TiSEM 1f078e67-88ec-46e3-ae18-1, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    7. Yuval Rottenstreich & Alex Markle & Johannes Müller-Trede, 2023. "Risky Sure Things," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(8), pages 4707-4720, August.
    8. Gonçalo Faria & João Correia-da-Silva, 2012. "The price of risk and ambiguity in an intertemporal general equilibrium model of asset prices," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 8(4), pages 507-531, November.
    9. Amit Kothiyal & Vitalie Spinu & Peter Wakker, 2014. "An experimental test of prospect theory for predicting choice under ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 1-17, February.
    10. Nathalie Chappe & Raphaël Giraud, 2013. "Confidence, Optimism and Litigation: A Litigation Model under Ambiguity," Working Papers 2013-05, CRESE.
    11. Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2012. "A genuine foundation for prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 97-113, October.
    12. Federica Ceron & Vassili Vergopoulos, 2020. "Recursive objective and subjective multiple priors," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-02563318, HAL.
    13. Jacobs Martin, 2016. "Accounting for Changing Tastes: Approaches to Explaining Unstable Individual Preferences," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 67(2), pages 121-183, August.
    14. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1324-1369 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Cinfrignini, Andrea & Petturiti, Davide & Vantaggi, Barbara, 2023. "Dynamic bid–ask pricing under Dempster-Shafer uncertainty," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    16. Julian Thimme & Clemens Völkert, 2015. "High order smooth ambiguity preferences and asset prices," Review of Financial Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 1-15, November.
    17. Luisito Bertinelli & Arnaud Bourgain & Florian Léon, 2020. "Corruption and tax compliance: evidence from small retailers in Bamako, Mali," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(5), pages 366-370, March.
    18. Johanna Etner & Meglena Jeleva & Natacha Raffin, 2021. "Climate policy: How to deal with ambiguity?," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 72(1), pages 263-301, July.
    19. Lindsey, Robin, 2011. "State-dependent congestion pricing with reference-dependent preferences," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 45(10), pages 1501-1526.
    20. Yang, Fanzheng & Yu, Li, 2016. "With or without siblings: Sorting into competition in the experimental labor market," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 284-298.
    21. Jouvet, Pierre-André & Le Cadre, Elodie & Orset, Caroline, 2012. "Irreversible investment, uncertainty, and ambiguity: The case of bioenergy sector," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 45-53.

    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:kap:theord:v:89:y:2020:i:4:d:10.1007_s11238-020-09767-z. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.