IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/eca/wpaper/2013-296397.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Revealed Preference Analysis of Expected Utility Maximization under Prize-Probability Trade-Offs

Author

Listed:
  • Laurens Cherchye
  • Thomas Demuynck
  • Bram De Rock
  • Mikhail Freer

Abstract

We provide a revealed preference characterization of expected utility maximization in binary lotteries with prize-probability trade-offs. This characterization applies to a wide variety of decision problems, including first price auctions, crowdfunding games, posted price mechanisms and principal agent problems. We start by characterizing optimizing behavior when the empirical analyst exactly knows either the probability function of winning or the decision maker’s utility function. Subsequently, we provide a statistical test for the case where the utility function is unknown and the probability function has to be estimated. Finally, we consider the situation with both the probability function and utility function unknown. We show that expected utility maximization has empirical content when these functions satisfy log-concavity assumptions. We demonstrate the empirical usefulness of our theoretical findings through an application to an experimental data set.

Suggested Citation

  • Laurens Cherchye & Thomas Demuynck & Bram De Rock & Mikhail Freer, 2019. "Revealed Preference Analysis of Expected Utility Maximization under Prize-Probability Trade-Offs," Working Papers ECARES 2019-27, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    • Handle: RePEc:eca:wpaper:2013/296397
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://dipot.ulb.ac.be/dspace/bitstream/2013/296397/3/2019-27-CHERCHYE_DEMUYNCK_DEROCK_FREER-revealed.pdf
    File Function: Full text for the whole work, or for a work part
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kim, Taesung, 1996. "Revealed preference theory on the choice of lotteries," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 463-477.
    2. Federico Echenique & Kota Saito, 2015. "Savage in the Market," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83(4), pages 1467-1495, July.
    3. Athey, Susan & Haile, Philip A., 2007. "Nonparametric Approaches to Auctions," Handbook of Econometrics, in: J.J. Heckman & E.E. Leamer (ed.), Handbook of Econometrics, edition 1, volume 6, chapter 60, Elsevier.
    4. Martin Sefton & Abdullah Yavas & Eric Abrams, 2000. "An experimental comparison of two search models," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 16(3), pages 735-749.
    5. Cason, Timothy N. & Friedman, Daniel & Milam, Garrett H., 2003. "Bargaining versus posted price competition in customer markets," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 223-251, February.
    6. Matzkin, Rosa L. & Richter, Marcel K., 1991. "Testing strictly concave rationality," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 287-303, April.
    7. W. E. Diewert, 1973. "Afriat and Revealed Preference Theory," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 40(3), pages 419-425.
    8. Varian, Hal R, 1982. "The Nonparametric Approach to Demand Analysis," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(4), pages 945-973, July.
    9. Edward J. Green & Kent Osband, 1991. "A Revealed Preference Theory for Expected Utility," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 58(4), pages 677-695.
    10. Mark Bagnoli & Ted Bergstrom, 2006. "Log-concave probability and its applications," Studies in Economic Theory, in: Charalambos D. Aliprantis & Rosa L. Matzkin & Daniel L. McFadden & James C. Moore & Nicholas C. Yann (ed.), Rationality and Equilibrium, pages 217-241, Springer.
    11. Sepanski, S. J., 1994. "Asymptotics for Multivariate t-Statistic and Hotelling's T2-Statistic Under Infinite Second Moments via Bootstrapping," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 41-54, April.
    12. Charles F. Manski, 2004. "Measuring Expectations," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(5), pages 1329-1376, September.
    13. Manski, Charles F., 2002. "Identification of decision rules in experiments on simple games of proposal and response," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(4-5), pages 880-891, May.
    14. Tabarrok, Alexander, 1998. "The Private Provision of Public Goods via Dominant Assurance Contracts," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 96(3-4), pages 345-362, September.
    15. Hal R. Varian, 1983. "Non-parametric Tests of Consumer Behaviour," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 50(1), pages 99-110.
    16. Oliver Kirchkamp & J. Philipp Reiß, 2011. "Out‐Of‐Equilibrium Bids in First‐Price Auctions: Wrong Expectations or Wrong Bids," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 121(557), pages 1361-1397, December.
    17. Tibor Neugebauer & Javier Perote, 2008. "Bidding ‘as if’ risk neutral in experimental first price auctions without information feedback," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 11(2), pages 190-202, June.
    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. Cherchye, Laurens & Demuynck, Thomas & De Rock, Bram & Freer, Mikhail, 2022. "Revealed preference analysis of expected utility maximization under prize-probability trade-offs," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    2. Ahrash Dianat & Mikhail Freer, 2021. "Credibility in Second-Price Auctions: An Experimental Test," Papers 2105.00204, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2023.

    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. Cherchye, Laurens & Demuynck, Thomas & De Rock, Bram & Freer, Mikhail, 2022. "Revealed preference analysis of expected utility maximization under prize-probability trade-offs," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    2. Dziewulski, Paweł & Lanier, Joshua & Quah, John K.-H., 2024. "Revealed preference and revealed preference cycles: A survey," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    3. Demuynck, Thomas & Hjertstrand, Per, 2019. "Samuelson's Approach to Revealed Preference Theory: Some Recent Advances," Working Paper Series 1274, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    4. Hiroki Nishimura & Efe A. Ok & John K.-H. Quah, 2017. "A Comprehensive Approach to Revealed Preference Theory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(4), pages 1239-1263, April.
    5. Ian Crawford & Bram De Rock, 2014. "Empirical Revealed Preference," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 6(1), pages 503-524, August.
    6. Joshua Lanier & John K. -H. Quah, 2024. "Goodness-of-fit and utility estimation: what's possible and what's not," Papers 2405.08464, arXiv.org.
    7. Pawe{l} Dziewulski & Joshua Lanier & John K. -H. Quah, 2024. "Revealed preference and revealed preference cycles: a survey," Papers 2405.08459, arXiv.org.
    8. Laurens Cherchye & Thomas Demuynck & Bram De Rock & Mikhail Freer, 2018. "Equilibrium Play in First Price Auctions: Revealed Preference Analysis," Working Papers ECARES 2018-36, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    9. Ian Crawford, 2004. "Necessary and sufficient conditions for latent separability," CeMMAP working papers CWP02/04, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    10. Laura Blow & Martin Browning & Ian Crawford, 2004. "Nonparametric methods for the characteristic model," CeMMAP working papers 18/04, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    11. Cherchye, L.J.H. & Crawford, I. & de Rock, B. & Vermeulen, F.M.P., 2011. "Aggregation without the Aggravation? Nonparametric Analysis of the Representative Consumer," Other publications TiSEM e6102eac-a248-49dc-ae8e-1, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    12. Laurens CHERCHYE & Ian CRAWFORD & Bram DE ROCK & Frederic VERMEULEN, 2013. "Gorman revisited: nonparametric conditions for exact linear aggregation," Working Papers of Department of Economics, Leuven ces13.05, KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), Department of Economics, Leuven.
    13. Carvajal, Andres & Ray, Indrajit & Snyder, Susan, 2004. "Equilibrium behavior in markets and games: testable restrictions and identification," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(1-2), pages 1-40, February.
    14. Claudia Neri, 2015. "Eliciting beliefs in continuous-choice games: a double auction experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(4), pages 569-608, December.
    15. Matthew Polisson, 2018. "A lattice test for additive separability," IFS Working Papers W18/08, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    16. Dieter Saelens, 2022. "Unitary or collective households? A nonparametric rationality and separability test using detailed data on consumption expenditures and time use," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 62(2), pages 637-677, February.
    17. Jan Heufer, 2014. "Generating Random Optimising Choices," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 44(3), pages 295-305, October.
    18. Fleissig, Adrian R. & Whitney, Gerald, 2011. "A revealed preference test of rationing," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 113(3), pages 234-236.
    19. Laura Blow & Martin Browning & Ian Crawford, 2008. "Revealed Preference Analysis of Characteristics Models," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 75(2), pages 371-389.
    20. Heufer, Jan, 2014. "Nonparametric comparative revealed risk aversion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 569-616.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    expected utility maximization; prize-probability trade offs; revealed preference characterization; testable implication; experiemental data;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D00 - Microeconomics - - General - - - General

    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:eca:wpaper:2013/296397. 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: Benoit Pauwels (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/arulbbe.html .

    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.