IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2009.04173.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Random Non-Expected Utility: Non-Uniqueness

Author

Listed:
  • Yi-Hsuan Lin

Abstract

In random expected utility (Gul and Pesendorfer, 2006), the distribution of preferences is uniquely recoverable from random choice. This paper shows through two examples that such uniqueness fails in general if risk preferences are random but do not conform to expected utility theory. In the first, non-uniqueness obtains even if all preferences are confined to the betweenness class (Dekel, 1986) and are suitably monotone. The second example illustrates random choice behavior consistent with random expected utility that is also consistent with random non-expected utility. On the other hand, we find that if risk preferences conform to weighted utility theory (Chew, 1983) and are monotone in first-order stochastic dominance, random choice again uniquely identifies the distribution of preferences. Finally, we argue that, depending on the domain of risk preferences, uniqueness may be restored if joint distributions of choice across a limited number of feasible sets are available.

Suggested Citation

  • Yi-Hsuan Lin, 2020. "Random Non-Expected Utility: Non-Uniqueness," Papers 2009.04173, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2009.04173
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2009.04173
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.
    2. Gul, Faruk, 1991. "A Theory of Disappointment Aversion," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(3), pages 667-686, May.
    3. Chew, Soo Hong, 1983. "A Generalization of the Quasilinear Mean with Applications to the Measurement of Income Inequality and Decision Theory Resolving the Allais Paradox," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 51(4), pages 1065-1092, July.
    4. Grandmont, Jean-Michel, 1992. "Transformations of the commodity space, behavioral heterogeneity, and the aggregation problem," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 1-35.
    5. Faruk Gul & Wolfgang Pesendorfer, 2006. "Random Expected Utility," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(1), pages 121-146, January.
    6. Barbera, Salvador & Pattanaik, Prasanta K, 1986. "Falmagne and the Rationalizability of Stochastic Choices in Terms of Random Orderings," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 54(3), pages 707-715, May.
    7. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    8. Kleiber, Christian & Stoyanov, Jordan, 2013. "Multivariate distributions and the moment problem," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 7-18.
    9. Dekel, Eddie, 1986. "An axiomatic characterization of preferences under uncertainty: Weakening the independence axiom," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 304-318, 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. Wei Ma, 2023. "Random dual expected utility," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 75(2), pages 293-315, February.
    2. Turansick, Christopher, 2022. "Identification in the random utility model," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).

    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. Simone Cerreia-Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva & Gil Riella, 2019. "Deliberately Stochastic," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(7), pages 2425-2445, July.
      • Simone Cerreia-Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva & Gil Riella, 2012. "Deliberately Stochastic," PIER Working Paper Archive 17-013, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 25 May 2017.
    2. Chew, Soo Hong & Miao, Bin & Shen, Qiang & Zhong, Songfa, 2022. "Multiple-switching behavior in choice-list elicitation of risk preference," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    3. Uri Gneezy & Yoram Halevy & Brian Hall & Theo Offerman & Jeroen van de Ven, 2024. "How Real is Hypothetical? A High-Stakes Test of the Allais Paradox," Working Papers tecipa-783, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.
    4. Xi Zhi Lim, 2021. "Ordered Reference Dependent Choice," Papers 2105.12915, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2024.
    5. Qiyan Ong & Jianying Qiu, 2023. "Paying for randomization and indecisiveness," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 67(1), pages 45-72, August.
    6. Daniel R. Burghart, 2020. "The two faces of independence: betweenness and homotheticity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 88(4), pages 567-593, May.
    7. Sara Arts & Qiyan Ong & Jianying Qiu, 2024. "Measuring decision confidence," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 27(3), pages 582-603, July.
    8. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.
    9. Raquel M. Gaspar & Paulo M. Silva, 2023. "Investors’ perspective on portfolio insurance," Portuguese Economic Journal, Springer;Instituto Superior de Economia e Gestao, vol. 22(1), pages 49-79, January.
    10. Kontek, Krzysztof, 2015. "Fanning-Out or Fanning-In? Continuous or Discontinuous? Estimating Indifference Curves Inside the Marschak-Machina Triangle using Certainty Equivalents," MPRA Paper 63965, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. 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.
    12. Zvi Safra & Uzi Segal, 2020. "Calibration Results for Incomplete Preferences," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 71(2), pages 323-330.
    13. Belianin, A., 2017. "Face to Face to Human Being: Achievements and Challenges of Behavioral Economics," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 34(2), pages 166-175.
    14. Dean, Mark & Ortoleva, Pietro, 2017. "Allais, Ellsberg, and preferences for hedging," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(1), January.
    15. David Dillenberger & Uzi Segal, 2021. "Allocation Mechanisms without Reduction," American Economic Review: Insights, American Economic Association, vol. 3(4), pages 455-470, December.
    16. Oben K. Bayrak & John D. Hey, 2020. "Decisions under risk: Dispersion and skewness," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 61(1), pages 1-24, August.
    17. Harless, David W & Camerer, Colin F, 1994. "The Predictive Utility of Generalized Expected Utility Theories," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(6), pages 1251-1289, November.
    18. Raquel M. Gaspar & Paulo M. Silva, 2019. "Investors’ Perspective on Portfolio InsuranceExpected Utility vs Prospect Theories," Working Papers REM 2019/92, ISEG - Lisbon School of Economics and Management, REM, Universidade de Lisboa.
    19. David Freeman, 2013. "Revealed Preference Foundations of Expectations-Based Reference-Dependence," Discussion Papers dp13-10, Department of Economics, Simon Fraser University.
    20. Zvi Safra & Uzi Segal, 2009. "Risk aversion in the small and in the large: Calibration results for betweenness functionals," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 27-37, February.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:2009.04173. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.