IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/restud/v57y1990i3p503-511..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stochastic Dominance in Regret Theory

Author

Listed:
  • John Quiggin

Abstract

The regret theory of choice under uncertainty is known to admit intransitivities in preference relations. In this paper, the stochastic dominance properties of the theory are examined. It is shown that the usual definition of first stochastic dominance is not satisfied by regret-theoretic preferences and that, in general, violations of first stochastic dominance are not merely permitted but required. An exact characterization of the stochastic dominance rule corresponding to regret-theoretic preferences is presented. This concept is weaker than the usual definition, but stronger than the notion of statewise dominance in which one prospect yields a preferred outcome with probability 1.

Suggested Citation

  • John Quiggin, 1990. "Stochastic Dominance in Regret Theory," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 57(3), pages 503-511.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:restud:v:57:y:1990:i:3:p:503-511.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2307/2298026
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    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. Ben Irons & Cameron Hepburn, 2007. "Regret Theory and the Tyranny of Choice," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 83(261), pages 191-203, June.
    2. Rolf Aaberge & Magne Mogstad, 2009. "On the Measurement of Long-Term Income Inequality and Income Mobility," ICER Working Papers 09-2009, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
    3. Syngjoo Choi & Shachar Kariv & Wieland M?ller & Dan Silverman, 2014. "Who Is (More) Rational?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(6), pages 1518-1550, June.
    4. Aluma Dembo & Shachar Kariv & Matthew Polisson & John Quah, 2021. "Ever since Allais," IFS Working Papers W21/15, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    5. Chen, Daniel L. & Schonger, Martin, 2016. "Social preferences or sacred values? Theory and evidence of deontological motivations," TSE Working Papers 16-714, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), revised Feb 2020.
    6. Mark Schneider & Robert Day, 2018. "Target-Adjusted Utility Functions and Expected-Utility Paradoxes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 271-287, January.
    7. Bell, Michelle L. & Hobbs, Benjamin F. & Ellis, Hugh, 2003. "The use of multi-criteria decision-making methods in the integrated assessment of climate change: implications for IA practitioners," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 289-316, December.
    8. Cappelen, Alexander W. & Kariv, Shachar & Sørensen, Erik Ø. & Tungodden, Bertil, 2014. "Is There a Development Gap in Rationality?," Discussion Paper Series in Economics 8/2014, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Economics.
    9. Cappelen, Alexander W. & Kariv, Shachar & Sørensen, Erik Ø. & Tungodden, Bertil, 2023. "The development gap in economic rationality of future elites," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 866-878.
    10. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Luis Pinto-Prades, 2006. "A New Type of Preference Reversal," Working Papers 06.18, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Economics.
    11. Moreno Jiménez, J.Mª & Escobar Urmeneta, Mª T., 2000. "El pesar en el proceso analítico jerárquico1," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 14, pages 95-115, Abril.

    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:restud:v:57:y:1990:i:3:p:503-511.. 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/restud .

    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.