Skip to main content
Log in

Indecisiveness aversion and preference for commitment

  • Published:
Theory and Decision Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We present an axiomatic model of preferences over menus that is motivated by three assumptions. First, the decision maker is uncertain ex ante (i.e., at the time of choosing a menu) about her ex post (i.e., at the time of choosing an option within her chosen menu) preferences over options, and she anticipates that this subjective uncertainty will not resolve before the ex post stage. Second, she is averse to ex post indecisiveness (i.e., to having to choose between options that she cannot rank with certainty). Third, when evaluating a menu she discards options that are dominated (i.e., inferior to another option whatever her ex post preferences may be) and restricts attention to the undominated ones. Under these assumptions, the decision maker has a preference for commitment in the sense of preferring menus with fewer undominated alternatives. We derive a representation in which the decision maker’s uncertainty about her ex post preferences is captured by means of a subjective state space, which in turn determines which options are undominated in a given menu, and in which the decision maker fears, whenever indecisive, to choose an option that will turn out to be the worst (undominated) one according to the realization of her ex post preferences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Debreu G. (1954) Representation of a preference ordering by a numerical function. In: Thrall R., Coombs C., Davis R. (eds) Decision processes. Wiley, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Dekel E., Lipman B. L., Rustichini A. (2001) Representing preferences with a unique subjective state space. Econometrica 69(4): 891–934

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dekel E., Lipman B. L., Rustichini A. (2009) Temptation-driven preferences. Review of Economic Studies 76(3): 937–971

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dekel E., Lipman B. L., Rustichini A., Sarver T. (2007a) Representing preferences with a unique subjective state space: A corrigendum. Econometrica 75: 591–600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dekel, E., Lipman, B. L., Rustichini, A., & Sarver, T. (2007b). Supplement to representing preferences with a unique subjective state space: Corrigendum, Econometrica Supplementary Material, 75.

  • Dubra J., Maccheroni F., Ok E.A. (2004) Expected utility theory without the completeness axiom. Journal of Economic Theory 115(1): 118–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eliaz K., Ok E. A. (2006) Indifference or indecisiveness? Choice-theoretic foundations of incomplete preferences. Games and Economix Behavior 56(1): 61–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein L., Marinacci M., Seo K. (2007) Coarse contingencies and ambiguity. Theoretical Economics 2: 355–394

    Google Scholar 

  • Ergin H., Sarver T. (2010) A unique costly contemplation representation. Econometrica 78(4): 1285–1339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guerdjikova A., Zimper A. (2008) Flexibility of choice versus reduction of ambiguity. Social Choice and Welfare 30: 507–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gul F., Pesendorfer W. (2001) Temptation and self-control. Econometrica 69(6): 1403–1435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein E., Thompson A. C. (1984) Theory of correspondences: Including applications to mathematical economics. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreps D. M. (1979) A representation theorem for preference for flexibility. Econometrica 47(3): 565–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nehring K. (1999) Preference for flexibility in a Savage framework. Econometrica 67: 101–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ortoleva, P. (2010). The price of flexibility: Towards a theory of thinking aversion. mimeo.

  • Ozdenoren E. (2002) Completing the state space with subjective states. Journal of Economic Theory 105: 531–539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rockafellar R. T. (1970) Convex analysis. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarver T. (2008) Anticipating regret: Why fewer options may be better. Econometrica 76: 263–305

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider R. (1993) Convex bodies: The Brunn-Minkowski theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eric Danan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Danan, E., Guerdjikova, A. & Zimper, A. Indecisiveness aversion and preference for commitment. Theory Decis 72, 1–13 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-011-9254-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-011-9254-7

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation