IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jeborg/v37y1998i3p277-290.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

AUSI expected utility: An anticipated utility theory of relative disappointment aversion

Author

Listed:
  • Grant, Simon
  • Kajii, Atsushi

Abstract

In recent years there has been a growing theoretical, experimental and empirical challenge to Expected Utility Theory, the overwhelmingly dominant paradigm for modeling decision-making under risk. However, there has been relatively little work done in providing easily parameterized alternatives for applied work. In this paper we provide an axiomatization for a representation of preferences over lotteries that is only one parameter richer than expected utility. Our model is a special case of Quiggin's Rank Dependent Expected Utility. Moreover, we show that the same restriction on this parameter is required for: risk aversion; intuitive comparative static results for a reasonably general class of economically interesting choice problems; and accommodating some of the most well-known violations of Expected Utility Theory.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Grant, Simon & Kajii, Atsushi, 1998. "AUSI expected utility: An anticipated utility theory of relative disappointment aversion," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 277-290, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:37:y:1998:i:3:p:277-290
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167-2681(98)00094-8
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

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

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Segal, Uzi, 1990. "Two-Stage Lotteries without the Reduction Axiom," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 58(2), pages 349-377, March.
    2. Yaari, Menahem E, 1987. "The Dual Theory of Choice under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(1), pages 95-115, January.
    3. Diamond, Peter A. & Stiglitz, Joseph E., 1974. "Increases in risk and in risk aversion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 337-360, July.
    4. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    5. Wu, George, 1994. "An Empirical Test of Ordinal Independence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 39-60, July.
    6. Hong, Chew Soo & Karni, Edi & Safra, Zvi, 1987. "Risk aversion in the theory of expected utility with rank dependent probabilities," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 370-381, August.
    7. Luce, R. Duncan, 1991. "Rank- and sign-dependent linear utility models for binary gambles," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 75-100, February.
    8. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    9. Segal, Uzi, 1987. "Some remarks on Quiggin's anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 145-154, March.
    10. Segal, Uzi, 1993. "The Measure Representation: A Correction," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 99-107, January.
    11. Loomes, Graham, 1991. "Evidence of a New Violation of the Independence Axiom," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 91-108, January.
    12. Gul, Faruk, 1991. "A Theory of Disappointment Aversion," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(3), pages 667-686, May.
    13. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    14. Karni, Edi & Safra, Zvi, 1987. ""Preference Reversal' and the Observability of Preferences by Experimental Methods," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(3), pages 675-685, May.
    15. Rubinstein, Ariel, 1988. "Similarity and decision-making under risk (is there a utility theory resolution to the Allais paradox?)," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 145-153, October.
    16. Wakker, Peter, 1993. "Counterexamples to Segal's Measure Representation Theorem," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 91-98, January.
    17. John D. Hey & Chris Orme, 2018. "Investigating Generalizations Of Expected Utility Theory Using Experimental Data," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 3, pages 63-98, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    18. Hong Chew Soo & Epstein Larry G. & Wakker Peter, 1993. "A Unifying Approach to Axiomatic Non-expected Utility Theories: Correction and Comment," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 183-188, February.
    19. Puppe, Clemens, 1990. "Preference functionals with prize-dependent distortion of probabilities," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 127-131, June.
    20. Chris Starmer, 1992. "Testing New Theories of Choice under Uncertainty using the Common Consequence Effect," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 59(4), pages 813-830.
    21. Camerer, Colin F, 1989. "An Experimental Test of Several Generalized Utility Theories," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 61-104, April.
    22. Chew, S. H. & Epstein, L. G., 1989. "A unifying approach to axiomatic non-expected utility theories," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 207-240, December.
    23. Luce, R Duncan & Fishburn, Peter C, 1991. "Rank- and Sign-Dependent Linear Utility Models for Finite First-Order Gambles," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 29-59, January.
    24. repec:bla:econom:v:58:y:1991:i:229:p:1-16 is not listed on IDEAS
    25. Feder, Gershon, 1977. "The impact of uncertainty in a class of objective functions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 504-512, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Freeman, David, 2015. "Calibration without reduction for non-expected utility," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 158(PA), pages 21-32.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1324-1369 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Thierry Chauveau, 2016. "Stochastic dominance, risk and disappointment: a synthesis," Post-Print halshs-01025102, HAL.
    4. Grant, Simon & Kajii, Atsushi & Polak, Ben, 2001. "Different notions of disappointment aversion," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 203-208, February.
    5. Kfir Eliaz & Debraj Ray & Ronny Razin, 2006. "Choice Shifts in Groups: A Decision-Theoretic Basis," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(4), pages 1321-1332, September.
    6. Meng, Jingyi & Webb, Craig S. & Zank, Horst, 2024. "Mixture independence foundations for expected utility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    7. Thierry Chauveau, 2012. "Subjective risk and disappointment," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00747902, HAL.
    8. Thierry Chauveau, 2014. "Stochastic dominance, risk and disappointment: a synthesis," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 14054rr, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne, revised Jan 2016.
    9. Ryan, Matthew J., 2006. "Risk aversion in RDEU," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(6), pages 675-697, September.
    10. Sudeep Bhatia & Graham Loomes & Daniel Read, 2021. "Establishing the laws of preferential choice behavior," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(6), pages 1324-1369, November.
    11. Lindsey, Robin, 2011. "State-dependent congestion pricing with reference-dependent preferences," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 45(10), pages 1501-1526.
    12. Abdellaoui, Mohammed & Bleichrodt, Han, 2007. "Eliciting Gul's theory of disappointment aversion by the tradeoff method," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 631-645, December.
    13. Jamie Alcock & Petra Andrlikova, 2018. "Asymmetric Dependence in Real Estate Investment Trusts: An Asset-Pricing Analysis," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 56(2), pages 183-216, February.
    14. Thierry Chauveau & Nicolas Nalpas, 2011. "Disappointment Models: an axiomatic approach," Post-Print halshs-00560543, HAL.
    15. Daniel R. Burghart, 2020. "The two faces of independence: betweenness and homotheticity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 88(4), pages 567-593, May.
    16. Kfir Eliaz & Debraj Ray, 2004. "Choice Shifts in Groups," Econometric Society 2004 North American Summer Meetings 205, Econometric Society.
    17. Thierry Chauveau, 2014. "Stochastic dominance, risk and disappointment: a synthesis," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 14054r, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne, revised Jul 2015.
    18. Thierry Chauveau, 2012. "Subjective risk and disappointment," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 12063, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    19. Carlos Laciana & Elke Weber, 2008. "Correcting expected utility for comparisons between alternative outcomes: A unified parameterization of regret and disappointment," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 1-17, February.
    20. Ormiston, Michael B. & E. Schlee, Edward, 1999. "Comparative statics tests between decision models under risk," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 145-166, October.

    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. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2018. "A second-generation disappointment aversion theory of decision making under risk," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(1), pages 29-60, January.
    2. Jean Baccelli, 2018. "Risk attitudes in axiomatic decision theory: a conceptual perspective," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(1), pages 61-82, January.
    3. Wakker, Peter, 1996. "The sure-thing principle and the comonotonic sure-thing principle: An axiomatic analysis," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 213-227.
    4. Matthew D. Rablen, 2023. "Loss Aversion, Risk Aversion, and the Shape of the Probability Weighting Function," Working Papers 2023013, The University of Sheffield, Department of Economics.
    5. James Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj & Ulrich Schmidt, 2015. "Paradoxes and mechanisms for choice under risk," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(2), pages 215-250, June.
    6. Trabelsi, Mohamed Ali, 2006. "Les nouveaux modèles de décision dans le risque et l’incertain : quel apport ? [The new models of decision under risk or uncertainty : What approach?]," MPRA Paper 25442, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Rablen, Matthew D., 2019. "Foundations of the Rank-Dependent Probability Weighting Function," IZA Discussion Papers 12701, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    8. Diecidue, Enrico & Schmidt, Ulrich & Zank, Horst, 2009. "Parametric weighting functions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(3), pages 1102-1118, May.
    9. Michael H. Birnbaum & Ulrich Schmidt & Miriam D. Schneider, 2017. "Testing independence conditions in the presence of errors and splitting effects," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 54(1), pages 61-85, February.
    10. Trabelsi, Mohamed Ali, 2006. "Les nouveaux modèles de décision dans le risque et l’incertain : quel apport ? [The new models of decision under risk or uncertainty : What approach?]," MPRA Paper 25442, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Glenn W. Harrison & J. Todd Swarthout, 2016. "Cumulative Prospect Theory in the Laboratory: A Reconsideration," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2016-04, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    12. Liang Zou, 2006. "An Alternative to Prospect Theory," Annals of Economics and Finance, Society for AEF, vol. 7(1), pages 1-28, May.
    13. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.
    14. Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten Igel & Rutström, Elisabet E., 2014. "Dual criteria decisions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 101-113.
      • Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten Igel & Rutström, Elisabet, 2009. "Dual Criteria Decisions," Working Papers 02-2009, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Economics.
    15. Safra, Zvi & Segal, Uzi, 1998. "Constant Risk Aversion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 19-42, November.
    16. Michal Skořepa, 2007. "Zpochybnění deskriptivnosti teorie očekávaného užitku [Doubts about the descriptive validity of the expected utility theory]," Politická ekonomie, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2007(1), pages 106-120.
    17. Patrick DeJarnette & David Dillenberger & Daniel Gottlieb & Pietro Ortoleva, 2020. "Time Lotteries and Stochastic Impatience," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(2), pages 619-656, March.
    18. Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten Igel & Rutström, Elisabet E., 2010. "Behavioral econometrics for psychologists," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 553-576, August.
    19. Zvi Safra & Uzi Segal, 2005. "Are Universal Preferences Possible? Calibration Results for Non-Expected Utility Theories," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 633, Boston College Department of Economics.
    20. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1324-1369 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Birnbaum, Michael H. & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2010. "Allais paradoxes can be reversed by presenting choices in canonical split form," Kiel Working Papers 1615, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).

    More about this item

    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:eee:jeborg:v:37:y:1998:i:3:p:277-290. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jebo .

    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.