Dynamic decision making without expected utility: An operational approach

Non-expected utility theories, such as rank dependent utility (RDU) theory, have been proposed as alternative models to EU theory in decision making under risk. These models do not share the separability property of expected utility theory. This implies that, in a decision tree, if the reduction of compound lotteries assumption is made (so that preferences at each decision node reduce to RDU preferences among lotteries) and that preferences at different decision nodes are identical (same utility function and same weighting function), then the preferences are not dynamically consistent; in particular, the sophisticated strategy, i.e., the strategy generated by a standard rolling back of the decision tree, is likely to be dominated w.r.t. stochastic dominance. Dynamic consistency of choices remains feasible, and the decision maker can avoid dominated choices, by adopting a non-consequentialist behavior, with his choices in a subtree possibly depending on what happens in the rest of the tree. We propose a procedure which: (i) although adopting a non-consequentialist behavior, involves a form of rolling back of the decision tree; (ii) selects a non-dominated strategy that realizes a compromise between the decision maker’s discordant goals at the different decision nodes. Relative to the computations involved in the standard expected utility evaluation of a decision problem, the main computational increase is due to the identification of non-dominated strategies by linear programming. A simulation, using the rank dependent utility criterion, confirms the computational tractability of the model.

[1]  F. Schick Dutch Bookies and Money Pumps , 1986 .

[2]  Josef Hadar,et al.  Rules for Ordering Uncertain Prospects , 1969 .

[3]  Zvi Safra,et al.  Ascending bid auctions with behaviorally consistent bidders , 1989 .

[4]  J. Quiggin A theory of anticipated utility , 1982 .

[5]  M. Allais,et al.  The General Theory of Random Choices in Relation to the Invariant Cardinal Utility Function and the Specific Probability Function. The (U, θ) Model A General Overview , 1988 .

[6]  M. Machina Dynamic Consistency and Non-expected Utility Models of Choice under Uncertainty , 1989 .

[7]  Uzi Segal,et al.  Two Stage Lotteries Without the Reduction Axiom , 1990 .

[8]  M. Allais The Foundations of a Positive Theory of Choice Involving Risk and a Criticism of the Postulates and Axioms of the American School (1952) , 1979 .

[9]  Richard Gonzalez,et al.  Curvature of the Probability Weighting Function , 1996 .

[10]  George B. Dantzig,et al.  Decomposition Principle for Linear Programs , 1960 .

[11]  Jean-Yves Jaffray Rational Decision Making With Imprecise Probabilities , 1999, ISIPTA.

[12]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk — Source link , 2007 .

[13]  E. McClennen Rationality and Dynamic Choice: Foundational Explorations , 1996 .

[14]  M. Rothschild,et al.  Increasing risk: I. A definition , 1970 .

[15]  Bertrand Munier,et al.  Risk, decision and rationality , 1988 .

[16]  G. Choquet Theory of capacities , 1954 .

[17]  M. Machina Choice under Uncertainty: Problems Solved and Unsolved , 1987 .

[18]  Alexander Schrijver,et al.  Theory of linear and integer programming , 1986, Wiley-Interscience series in discrete mathematics and optimization.

[19]  Narendra Karmarkar,et al.  A new polynomial-time algorithm for linear programming , 1984, Comb..

[20]  L. M. M.-T. Theory of Probability , 1929, Nature.

[21]  G. Shafer,et al.  Expected Utility Hypotheses and the Allais Paradox. , 1982 .

[22]  Alain Chateauneuf,et al.  Risk seeking with diminishing marginal utility in a non-expected utility model , 1994 .

[23]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: analysis of decision under risk , 1979 .

[24]  C. S. Hong,et al.  Risk aversion in the theory of expected utility with rank dependent probabilities , 1987 .

[25]  M. Yaari The Dual Theory of Choice under Risk , 1987 .

[26]  Scott M. Olmsted On representing and solving decision problems , 1983 .

[27]  M. Rothschild,et al.  Increasing risk II: Its economic consequences , 1971 .

[28]  Robin P. Cubitt,et al.  Dynamic Choice and the Common Ratio Effect: An Experimental Investigation , 1998 .

[29]  Rakesh K. Sarin,et al.  Prospect Versus Utility , 1989 .

[30]  Howard Raiffa,et al.  Decision analysis: introductory lectures on choices under uncertainty. 1968. , 1969, M.D.Computing.

[31]  P. Hammond Consequentialist foundations for expected utility , 1988 .