IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eejocm/v53y2024ics1755534524000435.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The impact of violations of expected utility theory on choices in the face of multiple risks

Author

Listed:
  • Gonzalez Sepulveda, Juan Marcos
  • Van Houtven, George
  • Reed, Shelby D.
  • Webster, Scott
  • Johnson, F. Reed

Abstract

Use of preference information to infer risk tolerance has increased in recent years as a way to inform benefit-risk evaluations in regulatory and medical decision making. However, a framework for the measurement of tolerance for multiple uncertain outcomes has not been formalized when choices do not comply with expected utility theory (EUT). We developed a formal analytic framework for the measurement of preferences through choices under uncertainty with multiple risks. Based on the analytic framework, we find that violations of EUT can lead to interaction effects between uncertain outcomes, not just nonlinearities in the disutility of risks. Our framework also implies that measures of risk tolerance derived from utility, such as maximum-acceptable risk, must consider all relevant risks jointly if their effect on choices is expected to violate EUT. Somewhat reassuringly, however, we find that cross-outcome effects are expected to be negligible when the probabilities of other outcomes approach certainty. Finally, we identify a simple test that can help evaluate whether preferences for one uncertain outcome are affected by other uncertain outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Gonzalez Sepulveda, Juan Marcos & Van Houtven, George & Reed, Shelby D. & Webster, Scott & Johnson, F. Reed, 2024. "The impact of violations of expected utility theory on choices in the face of multiple risks," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:eejocm:v:53:y:2024:i:c:s1755534524000435
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jocm.2024.100511
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755534524000435
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jocm.2024.100511?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.

    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:eee:eejocm:v:53:y:2024:i:c:s1755534524000435. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-choice-modelling .

    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.