IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/oxecpp/v48y1996i1p1-19.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rational Dynamic Choice and Expected Utility Theory

Author

Listed:
  • Cubitt, Robin P

Abstract

This paper considers the normative status of the independence and ordering principles of expected utility theory. Preferences are defined in terms of choice and the two principles derived from restrictions on choice in sequential decision problems. The results extend and clarify important contributions by P. J. Hammond and E. F. McClennen. They show that it is different requirements on dynamic choice which rationalize independence and ordering respectively and illuminate their relationship to consequentialism. Copyright 1996 by Royal Economic Society.

Suggested Citation

  • Cubitt, Robin P, 1996. "Rational Dynamic Choice and Expected Utility Theory," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 48(1), pages 1-19, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:oxecpp:v:48:y:1996:i:1:p:1-19
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0030-7653%28199601%292%3A48%3A1%3C1%3ARDCAEU%3E2.0.CO%3B2-H&origin=bc
    File Function: full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to JSTOR subscribers. See http://www.jstor.org for details.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. ,, 2011. "Dynamic choice under ambiguity," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 6(3), September.
    2. Esponda, Ignacio & Vespa, Emanuel, 2023. "Contingent Thinking and the Sure-Thing Principle: Revisiting Classic Anomalies in the Laboratory#," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt32j4d5z2, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
    3. Maria J. Ruiz Martos, 2017. "Individual Dynamic Choice Behaviour and the Common Consequence Effect," ThE Papers 17/01, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    4. Croson, Rachel T. A., 1999. "The Disjunction Effect and Reason-Based Choice in Games, , , , , , , , , , , , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 118-133, November.
    5. John Hey & Massimo Paradiso., "undated". "Dynamic Choice and Timing-Independence: an experimental investigation," Discussion Papers 99/26, Department of Economics, University of York.
    6. Chris Starmer, 2000. "Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 332-382, June.
    7. Fumagalli, Roberto, 2021. "Rationality, preference satisfaction and anomalous intentions: why rational choice theory is not self-defeating," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 112446, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    8. John D. Hey & Luca Panaccione, 2018. "Dynamic decision making: what do people do?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 10, pages 235-273, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    9. Guerrero, Ana M. & Herrero, Carmen, 2005. "A semi-separable utility function for health profiles," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 33-54, January.
    10. Hammond, Peter J & Zank, Horst, 2013. "Rationality and Dynamic Consistency under Risk and Uncertainty," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 1033, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    11. Gerard J. Rothfus, 2024. "Evidence, causality, and sequential choice," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 97(4), pages 613-636, December.
    12. Maxim Pinkovskiy, 2009. "Rational Inattention and Choice Under Risk: Explaining Violations of Expected Utility Through a Shannon Entropy Formulation of the Costs of Rationality," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 37(1), pages 99-112, March.
    13. John D. Hey, 2005. "Do People (Want To) Plan?," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 52(1), pages 122-138, February.
    14. Roberto Fumagalli, 2021. "Rationality, preference satisfaction and anomalous intentions: why rational choice theory is not self-defeating," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 91(3), pages 337-356, October.
    15. Maria J. Ruiz Martos, 2018. "Sequential Common Consequence Effect and Incentives," ThE Papers 18/04, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    16. Maria J. Ruiz Martos, 2017. "Random Lottery Incentive Mechanism in Dynamic Choice Experiments," ThE Papers 17/02, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    17. Hammond, Peter J. & Zank, Horst, 2013. "Rationality and Dynamic Consistency under Risk and Uncertainty," Economic Research Papers 270426, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.

    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:oup:oxecpp:v:48:y:1996:i:1:p:1-19. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/oep .

    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.