Another Solution for Allais Paradox: Preference Imprecision, Dispersion and Pessimism

Bayrak, Oben (2016): Another Solution for Allais Paradox: Preference Imprecision, Dispersion and Pessimism.

Abstract

Although there are alternative models which can explain the Allais paradox with non-standard preferences, they do not take the emerging evidence on preference imprecision into account. The imprecision is so far incorporated into these models by adding a stochastic specification implying the errors that subjects make. However, there is also the inherent part of the preference imprecision which does not diminish with experience provided in repeated experiments and these stochastic specifications cannot explain a significant portion of the observed behavior in experiments. Moreover, evidence on imprecision suggests that subjects exhibit higher imprecision for a lottery with a higher variance. This paper presents a new model for decision under risk which takes into account the findings of the literature. Looking at the indifference curves predicted by the new model, the new model acts like a mixture of Expected Utility Theory and Rank Dependent Utility Theory depending on which part of the probability triangle the lottery is located.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Allais Paradox, Independence Axiom, Preference Imprecision, Anomalies, Decision Theory, Decision under Risk and Uncertainty, Alternative Models
• Subjects: A - General Economics and Teaching > A1 - General Economics; A - General Economics and Teaching > A1 - General Economics > A10 - General; B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B0 - General; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C0 - General; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C9 - Design of Experiments; D - Microeconomics > D0 - General; D - Microeconomics > D0 - General > D00 - General; D - Microeconomics > D0 - General > D01 - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles; D - Microeconomics > D0 - General > D02 - Institutions: Design, Formation, Operations, and Impact; D - Microeconomics > D0 - General > D03 - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles; D - Microeconomics > D0 - General > D04 - Microeconomic Policy: Formulation, Implementation, and Evaluation; D - Microeconomics > D1 - Household Behavior and Family Economics > D10 - General; D - Microeconomics > D1 - Household Behavior and Family Economics > D11 - Consumer Economics: Theory; D - Microeconomics > D8 - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty; D - Microeconomics > D8 - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty > D80 - General; D - Microeconomics > D8 - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty > D81 - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty; D - Microeconomics > D8 - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty > D83 - Search ; Learning ; Information and Knowledge ; Communication ; Belief ; Unawareness; D - Microeconomics > D8 - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty > D89 - Other; G - Financial Economics > G0 - General; G - Financial Economics > G0 - General > G02 - Behavioral Finance: Underlying Principles

References

Allais, M. (1953). Le Comportement de l’Homme Rationnel devant le Risque: Critique des Postulats et Axiomes de l’Ecole Americaine. Econometrica, 21(4), 503–546. http://doi.org/10.2307/1907921

Allais, M. (1990). Allais Paradox. In J. Eatwell, M. Milgate, & P. Newman (Eds.), Utility and probability (pp. 3–9). Hong Kong: Macmillian Press.

Amihud, Y. (1979a). A reply to Allais. In Expected Utility Hypotheses and the Allais Paradox (pp. 185–190). Springer.

Amihud, Y. (1979b). Critical examination of the new foundation of utility. In Expected Utility Hypotheses and the Allais Paradox (pp. 149–160). Springer.

Ballinger, T. P., & Wilcox, N. T. (1997). Decisions, error and heterogeneity. The Economic Journal, 107(443), 1090–1105.

Bayrak, O. K., & Kriström, B. (2016). Is there a valuation gap? The case of interval valuations. Economics Bulletin, 36(1), 218–236.

Burke, M. S., Carter, J. R., Gominiak, R. D., & Ohl, D. F. (1996). An experimental note on the allais paradox and monetary incentives. Empirical Economics, 21(4), 617–632.

Butler, D., & Loomes, G. (1988). Decision difficulty and imprecise preferences. Acta Psychologica, 68(1–3), 183–196. http://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(88)90054-6

Butler, D., & Loomes, G. (2011). Imprecision as an account of violations of independence and betweenness. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 80(3), 511–522. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2011.05.008

Butler, D., & Loomes, G. C. (2007). Imprecision as an Account of the Preference Reversal Phenomenon. The American Economic Review, 97(1), 277–297.

Camerer, C. F. (1989). An experimental test of several generalized utility theories. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2(1), 61–104.

Chew, S. H., & MacCrimmon, K. R. (1979). Alpha-nu choice theory: A generalization of expected utility theory. University of British Columbia.

Cohen, M., Jaffray, J.-Y., & Said, T. (1987). Experimental comparison of individual behavior under risk and under uncertainty for gains and for losses. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39(1), 1–22.

Conlisk, J. (1989). Three variants on the Allais example. The American Economic Review, 392–407.

Cubitt, R. P., Navarro-Martinez, D., & Starmer, C. (2015). On preference imprecision. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 50(1), 1–34. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-015-9207-6

Dubourg, W. R., Jones-Lee, M. W., & Loomes, G. (1994). Imprecise preferences and the WTP-WTA disparity. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 9(2), 115–133.

Fechner, G. T. (1966). Elements of psychophysics (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston). Inc.

Gescheider, G. A. (2013). Psychophysics: the fundamentals. Psychology Press.

Harless, D. W., & Camerer, C. F. (1994). The predictive utility of generalized expected utility theories. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 1251–1289.

Harrison, G. W. (1994). Expected utility theory and the experimentalists. Springer.

Hey, J. D., & Orme, C. (1994). Investigating Generalizations of Expected Utility Theory Using Experimental Data. Econometrica, 62(6), 1291–1326. http://doi.org/10.2307/2951750

Incekara-Hafalir, E., & Stecher, J. D. (2012). An experimental test of theories of behavior in Allais-type tasks. Unpublished Manuscript. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm?abstractid=2179060

Loomes, G. (2005). Modelling the Stochastic Component of Behaviour in Experiments: Some Issues for the Interpretation of Data. Experimental Economics, 8(4), 301–323. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-005-5372-9

Loomes, G., Moffatt, P. G., & Sugden, R. (2002). A microeconometric test of alternative stochastic theories of risky choice.Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 24(2), 103–130.

Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1995). Incorporating a stochastic element into decision theories. European Economic Review, 39(3), 641–648.

Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1998). Testing different stochastic specifications of risky choice. Economica, 581–598.

Morgenstern, O. (1979). Some reflections on utility. Springer.

Morrison, G. C. (1998). Understanding the disparity between WTP and WTA: endowment effect, substitutability, or imprecise preferences? Economics Letters, 59(2), 189–194. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1765(98)00049-4

Savage, L. J. (1954). The foundations of statistics. New York: Wiley.

Sopher, B., & Gigliotti, G. (1993). Intransitive cycles: Rational Choice or random error? An answer based on estimation of error rates with experimental data. Theory and Decision, 35(3), 311–336.

Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (1989). Violations of the independence axion in common ratio problems: An experimental test of some competing hypotheses. Annals of Operations Research, 19(1), 79–102.