Graduate studies at Western
Theory and Decision 52 (1):1-28 (2002)
|Abstract||In a dynamic (sequential) framework, departures from the independence axiom (IND) are reputed to induce violations of dynamic consistency (DC), which may in turn have undesirable normative consequences. This result thus questions the normative acceptability of non expected-utility (non-EU) models, which precisely relax IND. This paper pursues a twofold objective. The main one is to discuss the normative conclusion: usual arguments linking violations of DC to departures from IND are shown to be actually based on specific (but usually remaining implicit) assumptions which may rightfully be released, so that it is actually possible for a non-EU maximizer to be dynamically consistent and thus avoid normative difficulties. The second objective is to introduce a kind of `reality principle' (through two other evaluation criteria) in order to mitigate the normative requirement when examining adequate moods for non-EU decision making|
|Keywords||Sequential decisions Decision trees Dynamic consistency Non-expected utility Myopia Money pump Consequentialism Sophisticated behaviour Behavioural consistency Resolute behaviour|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Utpal Bose (2012). An Ethical Framework in Information Systems Decision Making Using Normative Theories of Business Ethics. Ethics and Information Technology 14 (1):17-26.
José Luis Bermúdez (2010). Pitfalls for Realistic Decision Theory: An Illustration From Sequential Choice. Synthese 176 (1):23 - 40.
Leendert W. N. Torre & Yao-Hua Tan (1999). Diagnosis and Decision Making in Normative Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 7 (1).
Iskra Fileva (2008). The Neutrality of Rightness and the Indexicality of Goodness: Beyond Objectivity and Back Again. Ratio 21 (3):273-285.
Wlodek Rabinowicz (1997). On Seidenfeldâs Criticism of Sophisticated Violations of the Independence Axiom. Theory and Decision 43 (3):279-292.
Francesco Guala (2000). The Logic of Normative Falsification: Rationality and Experiments in Decision Theory. Journal of Economic Methodology 7 (1):59-93.
Wlodek Rabinowicz (2000). Preference Stability and Substitution of Indifferents: A Rejoinder to Seidenfeld. Theory and Decision 48 (4):311-318.
Ron Sun & Todd Peterson, Some Experiments with a Hybrid Model for Learning Sequential Decision Making.
Surendra Arjoon (2007). Ethical Decision-Making: A Case for the Triple Font Theory. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 71 (4):395 - 410.
Barry Schwartz, Yakov Ben-Haim & Cliff Dacso (2011). What Makes a Good Decision? Robust Satisficing as a Normative Standard of Rational Decision Making. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 41 (2):209-227.
Martin Peterson (2004). Transformative Decision Rules, Permutability, and Non-Sequential Framing of Decision Problems. Synthese 139 (3):387-403.
Richard A. Wright (1991). Clinical Judgment and Bioethics: The Decision Making Link. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (1):71-91.
Horacio Arló-Costa (2005). Similarity in Logical Reasoning and Decision-Making. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):14-15.
Annemarie Kalis, Andreas Mojzisch, Sophie Schweizer & Stefan Kaiser (2008). Weakness of Will, Akrasia and the Neuropsychiatry of Decision-Making: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience 8 (4):402-17.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2010-09-02
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?