Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T13:07:54.967Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New Challenges to the Rationality Assumption

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 February 2009

Daniel Kahneman
Daniel Kahneman
Affiliation:
Princeton University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In contrast to logical criteria of rationality, which can be assessed entirely by reference to the system of preferences, substantive criteria of rational choice refer to an independent evaluation of the outcomes of decisions. One of these substantive criteria is the experienced hedonic utility of outcomes. Research indicates that people are myopic in their decisions, may lack skill in predicting their future tastes, and can be led to erroneous choices by fallible memory and incorrect evaluation of past experiences. Theoretical and practical implications of these challenges to the assumption of economic rationality are discussed.

Type
Articles
Information
Legal Theory , Volume 3 , Issue 2: Special Issue: Rationality , June 1997 , pp. 105 - 124
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Sen, A., Internal Consistency of Choice, 61 Econometrica, 495–521 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2. Sen, A., Rational Behaviour, in The New Palgrave: Utility and Probability 198–216Google Scholar (Eatwell, J., et al. eds., 1990).Google Scholar

3. Slovic, P. & Tversky, A., Who Accepts Savage's Axiom?, 19 Behav. Sci. 368 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D., Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions, 59 J. Bus. 251 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. Arrow, K.J., Risk Perception in Psychology and Economics, 20 Econ. Inquiry 1 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. Hammond, P., Consequential Behavior in Decision Trees and Expected Utility, Institute for Mathematical Studies in the Social Sciences Working Paper no. 112, Stanford University: Palo Alto, California (1985).Google Scholar

7. Supra note 4.

8. Id.

9. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D., The Causes of Preference Reversal, 80 Am. Econ. Rev. 204–17 (1990).Google Scholar

10. Supra note 4.

11. Fisher, I.. Is ‘Utility’ the Most Suitable Term for the Concept It Is Used to Denote?, 8 Am. Econ. Rev. 335 (1918)Google Scholar. Reprinted in Utility Theory A Book of Readings (Page, A.N. ed., 1968).Google Scholar

12. Sen, A., On Ethics and Economics (1987).Google Scholar

13. March, J., Bounded nationality, Ambiguity, and the Engineering of Choice, 9 Bell J. Econ. 567–608 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14. Kahneman, D. & Snell, J., Predicting Utility, inGoogle Scholar Insights in Decision Making (Hogarth, R.M. ed., 1990).Google Scholar

15. Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A., Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decisions Under Risk, 47 Econometrica 312–27 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16. Id.

17. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D., Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model, Q.J. Econ. 1039–61 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18. Supra note 4.

19. Id.

20. Supra note 17.

21. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D., Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty, 5 J. Risk & Uncertainty 297–323 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22. Kahneman, D. et al. , The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias, 5 J. Econ. Persp. 193–206 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23. Supra note 17.

24. Thaler, R., Toward a Positive Theory of Consumer Choice, 1 J. Econ. Behav. & Org. 39–60 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25. Kahnemnn, D. et al. Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem, 98 J. Pol Econ. 1325–18 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26. Franciosi, R. et al. , Experimental Test of the Endowment Effect, 30 J. Econ. Behav. & Org. 213–227(1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27. Ellickson, R., Bringing Culture and Human Frailty to Rational Actors, 65 Chi. Kent L. Rev. 23–55 (1989).Google Scholar

28. Hovenkamp, H., Legal Policy and the Endowment Effect, 20 J. Legal Stud. 225–47 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29. Hardie, B.G.S., Modeling has Aversion and Reference Dependence Effects on Brand Choice, Marketing Sci. 378–394 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

30. Supra note 22.

31. Brickman, R. et al. , Lottery Winners and Accident Victims: Is Happiness Relative?, 36 J. Personality & Soc. Psychol. 917–27 (1978).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

32. Supra note 13.

33. Supra note 14.

34. Christensen-Szalanski, J.J., Discount Functions and the Measurement of Patient's Values: Women's Decisions During Child birth, 4 Med. Decision Making 47–58 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35. Loewenstein, G. & Adler, D., A Bias in the Prediction of Tastes, 105 Econ. J. 929–937 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36. Supra note 25.

37. Simonson, I., The Effect of Purchase Quantity and Timing on Variety-Seeking Behavior, 27 J. Marketing Res. 150–62 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

38. Kahneman, D. et al. , Predicting a Changing Taste, 5 J. Behav. Decision Making 187–200 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39. Id.

40. Supra note 35.

41. Supra note 37.

42. Zajonc, R.B., Feeling and Thinking: Preferences Need No Inferences, 35 Am. Psychologist 151–75 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

43. Parfit, D., Reasons and Persons (1984).Google Scholar

44. The temporal monotonicity principle does not apply if the addition of pain or pleasure to the episode alters hedonic after-effects, such as relief, after-glow, or the effect associated with subsequent recollection. More generally, the analysis of experienced utility becomes difficult to apply where the consumption of memories plays an important role. Elster, J. & Loewenstein, G., Utility from Memory and Anticipation, in Choice Over Time 213–34Google Scholar (Elster, J. & Loewenstein, G. eds., 1992).Google Scholar

45. Redelmeier, D.A. & Kahneman, D., Duration Neglect in Patients' Memories of a Medical Procedure: Patients' Real-Time and Retrospective Evaluations of the Pain of Colonoscopy (under review).Google Scholar

46. Varey, C. & Kahneman, D., Experiences Extended Across Time: Evaluation of Moments and Episodes, 5 J. Behav. Decision Making 169–86 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

47. Kahneman, D. et al. , When More Pain Is Preferred to less: Adding a Better End, 4 Psychol. Sci. 401 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

48. Fredrickson, B.L. & Kahneman, D., Duration Neglect in Retrospective Evaluations of Affective Episodes, 65 J. Personality & Soc. Psychol. 45–55 (1993).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

49. Schelling, T.C., Choice and Consequence (1984).Google Scholar

50. Supra note 37.

51. Scitovsky, T., Joyless Economy (1976).Google Scholar

52. Frank, R.H., The Role of Moral Sentiments in the Theory of Intertemporal Choice, inGoogle Scholar Choice Over Time (Elster, J. & Loewenstein, G. eds., 1992).Google Scholar

53. Loewenstein, G. & Sicherman, N., Do Workers Prefer Increasing Wagt Profiles?, 9 J. Lab. Econ. 67–84 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

54. Kahneman, D. & Varey, C.A., Notes on the Psychology of Utility, in Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility 127–63Google Scholar (Elster, J. & Roemer, J. eds., 1991).Google Scholar

55. Simon, H., Models of Bounded Rationality 1955 (1982).Google Scholar

56. Supra note 4.