IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/41792.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Quantum-Conceptual Explanation of Violations of Expected Utility in Economics

Author

Listed:
  • Aerts, Diederik
  • Broekaert, Jan
  • Czachor, Marek
  • D'Hooghe, Bart

Abstract

The expected utility hypothesis is one of the building blocks of classical economic theory and founded on Savage's Sure-Thing Principle. It has been put forward, e.g. by situations such as the Allais and Ellsberg paradoxes, that real-life situations can violate Savage's Sure-Thing Principle and hence also expected utility. We analyze how this violation is connected to the presence of the 'disjunction effect'' of decision theory and use our earlier study of this effect in concept theory to put forward an explanation of the violation of Savage's Sure-Thing Principle, namely the presence of 'quantum conceptual thought' next to 'classical logical thought' within a double layer structure of human thought during the decision process. Quantum conceptual thought can be modeled mathematically by the quantum mechanical formalism, which we illustrate by modeling the Hawaii problem situation, a well-known example of the disjunction effect, and we show how the dynamics in the Hawaii problem situation is generated by the whole conceptual landscape surrounding the decision situation.

Suggested Citation

  • Aerts, Diederik & Broekaert, Jan & Czachor, Marek & D'Hooghe, Bart, 2011. "A Quantum-Conceptual Explanation of Violations of Expected Utility in Economics," MPRA Paper 41792, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:41792
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/41792/1/MPRA_paper_41792.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel Ellsberg, 2000. "Risk, Ambiguity and the Savage Axioms," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7605, David K. Levine.
    2. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    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. Ismaël Rafaï & Sébastien Duchêne & Eric Guerci & Irina Basieva & Andrei Khrennikov, 2022. "The triple-store experiment: a first simultaneous test of classical and quantum probabilities in choice over menus," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(2), pages 387-406, March.
    2. Ashtiani, Mehrdad & Azgomi, Mohammad Abdollahi, 2015. "A survey of quantum-like approaches to decision making and cognition," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 49-80.
    3. Dino Borie, 2013. "Expected utility theory with non-commutative probability theory," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, Springer;Society for Economic Science with Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, vol. 8(2), pages 295-315, October.
    4. Boyer-Kassem, Thomas & Duchêne, Sébastien & Guerci, Eric, 2016. "Testing quantum-like models of judgment for question order effect," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 33-46.
    5. Luke Snow & Shashwat Jain & Vikram Krishnamurthy, 2022. "Lyapunov based Stochastic Stability of Human-Machine Interaction: A Quantum Decision System Approach," Papers 2204.00059, arXiv.org.
    6. Thomas Boyer-Kassem & Sébastien Duchêne & Eric Guerci, 2016. "Quantum-like models cannot account for the conjunction fallacy," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 81(4), pages 479-510, November.
    7. Mehrdad Ashtiani & Mohammad Abdollahi Azgomi, 2016. "A formulation of computational trust based on quantum decision theory," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 735-764, August.

    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. Anne Corcos & François Pannequin & Sacha Bourgeois-Gironde, 2012. "Aversions to Trust," Recherches économiques de Louvain, De Boeck Université, vol. 78(3), pages 115-134.
    2. Chorvat, Terrence, 2006. "Taxing utility," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 1-16, February.
    3. Ghirardato, Paolo & Marinacci, Massimo, 2002. "Ambiguity Made Precise: A Comparative Foundation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 251-289, February.
    4. Hippolyte d’Albis & Emmanuel Thibault, 2018. "Ambiguous life expectancy and the demand for annuities," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 85(3), pages 303-319, October.
    5. Chambers, Christopher P. & Hayashi, Takashi, 2010. "Bayesian consistent belief selection," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(1), pages 432-439, January.
    6. Gajdos, T. & Hayashi, T. & Tallon, J.-M. & Vergnaud, J.-C., 2008. "Attitude toward imprecise information," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 140(1), pages 27-65, May.
    7. Koszegi, Botond, 2003. "Health anxiety and patient behavior," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(6), pages 1073-1084, November.
    8. Diecidue, Enrico & Wakker, Peter P., 2002. "Dutch books: avoiding strategic and dynamic complications, and a comonotonic extension," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 135-149, March.
    9. Raphaël Giraud & Jean-Marc Tallon, 2011. "Are beliefs a matter of taste? A case for objective imprecise information," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(1), pages 23-31, July.
    10. Chateauneuf, A. & Grabisch, M. & Rico, A., 2008. "Modeling attitudes toward uncertainty through the use of the Sugeno integral," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(11), pages 1084-1099, December.
    11. Kast, Robert & Lapied, Andre, 2003. "Comonotonic book making and attitudes to uncertainty," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 1-7, August.
    12. Leitner, Johannes, 2005. "Dilatation monotonous Choquet integrals," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 994-1006, December.
    13. Daniel Laskar, 2012. "Ambiguity and Coordination in a Global. Game Model of Financial Crises," PSE Working Papers halshs-00749500, HAL.
    14. Daniel Laskar, 2012. "Ambiguity and Coordination in a Global. Game Model of Financial Crises," Working Papers halshs-00749500, HAL.
    15. Bruno S. Frey & Matthias Benz, 2004. "From Imperialism to Inspiration: A Survey of Economics and Psychology," Chapters, in: John B. Davis & Alain Marciano & Jochen Runde (ed.), The Elgar Companion To Economics and Philosophy, chapter 4, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Treich, Nicolas, 2010. "The value of a statistical life under ambiguity aversion," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 15-26, January.
    17. Robison, Lindon J. & Shupp, Robert S. & Myers, Robert J., 2010. "Expected utility paradoxes," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 187-193, April.
    18. Dirk Bergemann & Karl Schlag, 2012. "Robust Monopoly Pricing," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Robust Mechanism Design The Role of Private Information and Higher Order Beliefs, chapter 13, pages 417-441, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    19. Daniel Laskar, 2008. "Monetary policy uncertainty and macroeconomic performance: An extended non-bayesian framework," Working Papers halshs-00586883, HAL.
    20. Joshua Aizenman, 1999. "International Portfolio Diversification with Generalized Expected Utility Preferences," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 32(4), pages 995-1008, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Expected Utility; Sure-Thing Principle; Quantum modeling; disjunction effect; Ellsberg paradox;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • B40 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Economic Methodology - - - General
    • C00 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - General - - - General
    • A10 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - General
    • D80 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - General

    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:pra:mprapa:41792. 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.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.