Graduate studies at Western
Theory and Decision 46 (2):159-199 (1999)
|Abstract||In many real-world gambles, a non-trivial amount of time passes before the uncertainty is resolved but after a choice is made. An individual may have a preference between gambles with identical probability distributions over final outcomes if they differ in the timing of resolution of uncertainty. In this domain, utility consists not only of the consumption of outcomes, but also the psychological utility induced by an unresolved gamble. We term this utility anxiety. Since a reflective decision maker may want to include anxiety explicitly in analysis of unresolved lotteries, a multiple-outcome model for evaluating lotteries with delayed resolution of uncertainty is developed. The result is a rank-dependent utility representation (e.g., Quiggin, 1982), in which period weighting functions are related iteratively. Substitution rules are proposed for evaluating compound temporal lotteries. The representation is appealing for a number of reasons. First, probability weights can be interpreted as the cognitive attention allocated to certain outcomes. Second, the model disaggregates strength of preference from temporal risk aversion and thus provides some insight into the old debate about the relationship between von NeumannâMorgenstern utility functions and strength of preference value functions|
|Keywords||Decision analysis Risk theory Delayed resolution of uncertainty Rank-dependent utility Stochastic stationarity|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Martin Ahlbrecht & Martin Weber (1997). Preference for Gradual Resolution of Uncertainty. Theory and Decision 43 (2):167-185.
Phan H. Giang & Prakash P. Shenoy (2000). A Qualitative Linear Utility Theory for Spohn's Theory of Epistemic Beliefs. In C. Boutilier & M. Goldszmidt (eds.), Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence 16. Morgan Kaufmann.
Stephen A. Clark (2000). Revealed Preference and Expected Utility. Theory and Decision 49 (2):159-174.
Teddy Seidenfeld, Mark J. Schervish & Joseph B. Kadane (2010). Coherent Choice Functions Under Uncertainty. Synthese 172 (1):157 - 176.
John Quiggin (2001). Production Under Uncertainty and Choice Under Uncertainty in the Emergence of Generalized Expected Utility Theory. Theory and Decision 51 (2/4):125-144.
Rolf Aaberge (2011). Empirical Rules of Thumb for Choice Under Uncertainty. Theory and Decision 71 (3):431-438.
Teddy Seidenfeld, Mark J. Schervish & Joseph B. Kadane, Preference for Equivalent Random Variables: A Price for Unbounded Utilities.
Paola Ferretti, Temporal Risk Aversion: What Determines the Attitude of the Decision Maker? The Case of the Buyer Decision Maker.
Giuseppe Fontana & Bill Gerrard (1999). Disequilibrium States and Adjustment Processes: Towards a Historical-Time Analysis of Behaviour Under Uncertainty. Philosophical Psychology 12 (3):311 – 324.
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.
Sven Ove Hansson (2006). Uncertainty and the Ethics of Clinical Trials. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 27 (2):149-167.
Peter C. Fishburn (1974). Convex Stochastic Dominance with Finite Consequence Sets. Theory and Decision 5 (2):119-137.
Mark Parascandola, Jennifer Hawkins & Marion Danis (2002). Patient Autonomy and the Challenge of Clinical Uncertainty. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 12 (3):245-264.
Richard Watt, Francisco J. Vázquez & Ignacio Moreno (2001). An Experiment on Rational Insurance Decisions. Theory and Decision 51 (2/4):247-296.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2010-09-02
Total downloads3 ( #214,470 of 749,219 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?