A Resource-Rational Process-Level Account of the St. Petersburg Paradox

The St. Petersburg paradox is a centuries-old philosophical puzzle concerning a lottery with infinite expected payoff for which people are only willing to pay a small amount to play. Despite many attempts and several proposals, no generally accepted resolution is yet at hand. In this work, we present the first resource-rational, process-level explanation of this paradox, demonstrating that it can be accounted for by a variant of normative expected utility valuation which acknowledges cognitive limitations. Specifically, we show that Nobandegani et al.'s (2018) metacognitively rational model, sample-based expected utility (SbEU), can account for major experimental findings on this paradox. Crucially, our resolution is consistent with two empirically well-supported assumptions: (a) People use only a few samples in probabilistic judgments and decision-making, and (b) people tend to overestimate the probability of extreme events in their judgment. Our work seeks to understand the St. Petersburg gamble as a particularly risky gamble whose process-level explanation is consistent with a broader process-level model of human decision-making under risk.

[1]  Falk Lieder,et al.  Resource-rational analysis: Understanding human cognition as the optimal use of limited computational resources , 2019, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[2]  Ardavan Salehi Nobandegani,et al.  On Robustness: An Undervalued Dimension of Human Rationality , 2019, CogSci.

[3]  Ardavan Salehi Nobandegani,et al.  Sample-Based Variant of Expected Utility Explains Effects of Time Pressure and Individual Differences in Processing Speed on Risk Preferences , 2019, CogSci.

[4]  Ardavan Salehi Nobandegani,et al.  Decoy Effect and Violation of Betweenness in Risky Decision Making: A Resource-Rational Mechanistic Account , 2019, CogSci.

[5]  Ardavan Salehi Nobandegani,et al.  A Resource-Rational Mechanistic Approach to One-shot Non-cooperative Games: The Case of Prisoner's Dilemma , 2019, CogSci.

[6]  Ardavan Salehi Nobandegani,et al.  Contextual Effects in Value-Based Decision Making: A Resource-Rational Mechanistic Account , 2019, Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society.

[7]  James C. Cox,et al.  The St. Petersburg paradox despite risk-seeking preferences: an experimental study , 2018, Business Research.

[8]  Noah D. Goodman,et al.  Empirical evidence for resource-rational anchoring and adjustment , 2017, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

[9]  Ardavan Salehi Nobandegani,et al.  Over-representation of Extreme Events in Decision-Making: A Rational Metacognitive Account , 2018, CogSci.

[10]  Falk Lieder,et al.  Overrepresentation of Extreme Events in Decision Making Reflects Rational Use of Cognitive Resources , 2017, Psychological review.

[11]  Rémi Bardenet,et al.  Monte Carlo Methods , 2013, Encyclopedia of Social Network Analysis and Mining. 2nd Ed..

[12]  Ardavan Salehi Nobandegani,et al.  Example Generation Under Constraints Using Cascade Correlation Neural Nets , 2018, CogSci.

[13]  S. Gershman,et al.  Where do hypotheses come from? , 2017, Cognitive Psychology.

[14]  Ardavan Salehi Nobandegani,et al.  Converting Cascade-Correlation Neural Nets into Probabilistic Generative Models , 2017, CogSci.

[15]  Adam N. Sanborn,et al.  Bayesian Brains without Probabilities , 2016, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[16]  Joshua B. Tenenbaum,et al.  Building machines that learn and think like people , 2016, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[17]  R. Hertwig Decisions from Experience , 2015 .

[18]  Samuel J. Gershman,et al.  Computational rationality: A converging paradigm for intelligence in brains, minds, and machines , 2015, Science.

[19]  Thomas L. Griffiths,et al.  Rational Use of Cognitive Resources: Levels of Analysis Between the Computational and the Algorithmic , 2015, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[20]  S. Denison,et al.  Probabilistic models, learning algorithms, and response variability: sampling in cognitive development , 2014, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[21]  Thomas L. Griffiths,et al.  One and Done? Optimal Decisions From Very Few Samples , 2014, Cogn. Sci..

[22]  D. Read,et al.  Prospect theory and the “forgotten” fourfold pattern of risk preferences , 2014 .

[23]  Jessica B. Hamrick,et al.  Simulation as an engine of physical scene understanding , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[24]  N. Barberis The Psychology of Tail Events: Progress and Challenges , 2013 .

[25]  Adam N. Sanborn,et al.  Bridging Levels of Analysis for Probabilistic Models of Cognition , 2012 .

[26]  Joshua B. Tenenbaum,et al.  Multistability and Perceptual Inference , 2012, Neural Computation.

[27]  Thomas M. Cover,et al.  On the St. Petersburg paradox , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory Proceedings.

[28]  D. Knill,et al.  Bayesian sampling in visual perception , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[29]  Zachary C. Burns,et al.  Overweighting of Small Probabilities , 2011 .

[30]  Bodo Vogt,et al.  On the Empirical Relevance of St. Petersburg Lotteries , 2011 .

[31]  Adam N Sanborn,et al.  Rational approximations to rational models: alternative algorithms for category learning. , 2010, Psychological review.

[32]  Timothy J. Pleskac,et al.  Decisions from experience: Why small samples? , 2010, Cognition.

[33]  Tibor Neugebauer Moral Impossibility in the Petersburg Paradox : A Literature Survey and Experimental Evidence , 2010 .

[34]  B. Hayden,et al.  The mean, the median, and the St. Petersburg paradox. , 2009, Judgment and decision making.

[35]  N. Chater,et al.  Are Probabilities Overweighted or Underweighted When Rare Outcomes Are Experienced (Rarely)? , 2009, Psychological science.

[36]  James C. Cox,et al.  Risky Decisions in the Large and in the Small:Theory and Experiment , 2008 .

[37]  James C. Cox,et al.  Is There A Plausible Theory for Risky Decisions , 2007 .

[38]  Gordon D. A. Brown,et al.  Decision by sampling , 2006, Cognitive Psychology.

[39]  Colin Camerer Three Cheers—Psychological, Theoretical, Empirical—for Loss Aversion , 2005 .

[40]  Pavlo R. Blavatskyy,et al.  Back to the St. Petersburg Paradox? , 2005, Manag. Sci..

[41]  Mei Wang,et al.  Cumulative prospect theory and the St. Petersburg paradox , 2006 .

[42]  G. Shafer St. Petersburg Paradox , 2004 .

[43]  Lynne M. Reder,et al.  Metacognition in Strategy Selection , 2002 .

[44]  H. Poor An Introduction to Signal Detection and Estimation , 1994, Springer Texts in Electrical Engineering.

[45]  A. Tversky,et al.  Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty , 1992 .

[46]  J. Geweke,et al.  Bayesian Inference in Econometric Models Using Monte Carlo Integration , 1989 .

[47]  William P. Bottom,et al.  Experts, Novices, and the St. Petersburg paradox: Is one solution enough? , 1989 .

[48]  On the St. Petersburg paradox , 1988 .

[49]  Amos Tversky,et al.  Risk: The Long and the Short. , 1983 .

[50]  Lola L. Lopes Decision Making in the Short Run. , 1981 .

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

[52]  Robert J. Aumann,et al.  The St. Petersburg paradox: A discussion of some recent comments , 1977 .

[53]  P. Samuelson St. Petersburg Paradoxes: Defanged, Dissected, and Historically Described , 1977 .

[54]  Daniel Kahneman,et al.  Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability , 1973 .

[55]  A. Tversky,et al.  Subjective Probability: A Judgment of Representativeness , 1972 .

[56]  D. Ellsberg Decision, probability, and utility: Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms , 1961 .

[57]  William Vickrey,et al.  Utility, Strategy, and Social Decision Rules , 1960 .

[58]  Paul A. Samuelson,et al.  The St. Petersburg Paradox as a Divergent Double Limit , 1960 .

[59]  Archive for History of Exact Sciences , 1960, Nature.

[60]  L. J. Savage,et al.  The Foundations of Statistics , 1955 .

[61]  D. Bernoulli Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk , 1954 .

[62]  H. Markowitz The Utility of Wealth , 1952, Journal of Political Economy.

[63]  K. Arrow Alternative Approaches to the Theory of Choice in Risk-Taking Situations , 1951 .

[64]  K. Menger,et al.  Das Unsicherheitsmoment in der Wertlehre , 1934 .

[65]  R. E. Moritz Some Curious Fallacies in the Study of Probabilities , 1923 .

[66]  B. Russell,et al.  A Treatise on Probability , 1921 .