Search results

1 – 10 of over 40000
Book part
Publication date: 3 June 2008

Nathaniel T. Wilcox

Choice under risk has a large stochastic (unpredictable) component. This chapter examines five stochastic models for binary discrete choice under risk and how they combine with…

Abstract

Choice under risk has a large stochastic (unpredictable) component. This chapter examines five stochastic models for binary discrete choice under risk and how they combine with “structural” theories of choice under risk. Stochastic models are substantive theoretical hypotheses that are frequently testable in and of themselves, and also identifying restrictions for hypothesis tests, estimation and prediction. Econometric comparisons suggest that for the purpose of prediction (as opposed to explanation), choices of stochastic models may be far more consequential than choices of structures such as expected utility or rank-dependent utility.

Details

Risk Aversion in Experiments
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-84950-547-5

Book part
Publication date: 6 July 2007

Paul D. Thistle

For over 60 years, Lerner's (1944) probabilistic approach to the welfare evaluation of income distributions has aroused controversy. Lerner's famous theorem is that, under…

Abstract

For over 60 years, Lerner's (1944) probabilistic approach to the welfare evaluation of income distributions has aroused controversy. Lerner's famous theorem is that, under ignorance regarding who has which utility function, the optimal distribution of income is completely equal. However, Lerner's probabilistic approach can only be applied to compare distributions with equal means when the number of possible utility functions equals the number of individuals in the population. Lerner's most controversial assumption that each assignment of utility functions to individuals is equally likely. This paper generalizes Lerner's probabilistic approach to the welfare analysis of income distributions by weakening the restrictions of utilitarian welfare, equal means, equal numbers, and equal probabilities and a homogeneous population. We show there is a tradeoff between invariance (measurability and comparability) and the information about the assignment of utility functions to individuals required to evaluate expected social welfare.

Details

Equity
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-0-7623-1450-8

Book part
Publication date: 23 October 2023

Glenn W. Harrison and J. Todd Swarthout

We take Cumulative Prospect Theory (CPT) seriously by rigorously estimating structural models using the full set of CPT parameters. Much of the literature only estimates a subset…

Abstract

We take Cumulative Prospect Theory (CPT) seriously by rigorously estimating structural models using the full set of CPT parameters. Much of the literature only estimates a subset of CPT parameters, or more simply assumes CPT parameter values from prior studies. Our data are from laboratory experiments with undergraduate students and MBA students facing substantial real incentives and losses. We also estimate structural models from Expected Utility Theory (EUT), Dual Theory (DT), Rank-Dependent Utility (RDU), and Disappointment Aversion (DA) for comparison. Our major finding is that a majority of individuals in our sample locally asset integrate. That is, they see a loss frame for what it is, a frame, and behave as if they evaluate the net payment rather than the gross loss when one is presented to them. This finding is devastating to the direct application of CPT to these data for those subjects. Support for CPT is greater when losses are covered out of an earned endowment rather than house money, but RDU is still the best single characterization of individual and pooled choices. Defenders of the CPT model claim, correctly, that the CPT model exists “because the data says it should.” In other words, the CPT model was borne from a wide range of stylized facts culled from parts of the cognitive psychology literature. If one is to take the CPT model seriously and rigorously then it needs to do a much better job of explaining the data than we see here.

Details

Models of Risk Preferences: Descriptive and Normative Challenges
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-83797-269-2

Keywords

Article
Publication date: 1 July 2011

Wang Wen Hui

The purpose of this paper is to argue that Bernoulli's “utility function solution to the St Petersburg paradox” was wrong and to find a new method to solve the paradox.

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to argue that Bernoulli's “utility function solution to the St Petersburg paradox” was wrong and to find a new method to solve the paradox.

Design/methodology/approach

This goal is attained through two ways: using Bernoulli's and Kramer's utility function to construct new paradoxes; and designing and implementing a new St Petersburg game which does not carry the effect of diminishing marginal utility.

Findings

In this paper, the author finds that Bernoulli's “utility function solution to the St Petersburg paradox” was wrong, and also finds a new model to solve the paradox, which is also a brand‐new model of estimates under uncertainty.

Research limitations/implications

Bernoulli put forward the diminishing marginal utility of currency and thus accordingly provided the utility function solution to solve the paradox. This paper indicates that the Bernoulli's utility function solution does not work. Thus, further research needs to be taken in several aspects: is the diminishing marginal utility of currency tenable? Does the marginal utility of currency decrease monotonically? Are concave utility functions represented by negative index functions which are widely used in theoretical study reasonable?

Practical implications

The paper proposes a brand‐new possible research idea and direction for economic theoretical researches based on uncertainty.

Originality/value

This paper proved the untenability of the utility function solution to solve the St Petersburg paradox for the first time and proposed the pioneering “risk adjustment model” of estimates under uncertainty.

Details

China Finance Review International, vol. 1 no. 3
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 2044-1398

Keywords

Article
Publication date: 15 April 2022

Rahul Shrivastava, Dilip Singh Sisodia and Naresh Kumar Nagwani

In a multi-stakeholder recommender system (MSRS), stakeholders are the multiple entities (consumer, producer, system, etc.) benefited by the generated recommendations…

Abstract

Purpose

In a multi-stakeholder recommender system (MSRS), stakeholders are the multiple entities (consumer, producer, system, etc.) benefited by the generated recommendations. Traditionally, the exclusive focus on only a single stakeholders' (for example, only consumer or end-user) preferences obscured the welfare of the others. Two major challenges are encountered while incorporating the multiple stakeholders' perspectives in MSRS: designing a dedicated utility function for each stakeholder and optimizing their utility without hurting others. This paper proposes multiple utility functions for different stakeholders and optimizes these functions for generating balanced, personalized recommendations for each stakeholder.

Design/methodology/approach

The proposed methodology considers four valid stakeholders user, producer, cast and recommender system from the multi-stakeholder recommender setting and builds dedicated utility functions. The utility function for users incorporates enhanced side-information-based similarity computation for utility count. Similarly, to improve the utility gain, the authors design new utility functions for producer, star-cast and system to incorporate long-tail and diverse items in the recommendation list. Next, to balance the utility gain and generate the trade-off recommendation solution, the authors perform the evolutionary optimization of the conflicting utility functions using NSGA-II. Experimental evaluation and comparison are conducted over three benchmark data sets.

Findings

The authors observed 19.70% of average enhancement in utility gain with improved mean precision, diversity and novelty. Exposure, hit, reach and target reach metrics are substantially improved.

Originality/value

A new approach considers four stakeholders simultaneously with their respective utility functions and establishes the trade-off recommendation solution between conflicting utilities of the stakeholders.

Details

Data Technologies and Applications, vol. 56 no. 5
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 2514-9288

Keywords

Article
Publication date: 1 February 1978

KATHERINE K. YUNKER

If everyone were indifferent between more and less and between this and that, the problems of allocating scarce resources would be trivialized. The necessity of choice, whether…

Abstract

If everyone were indifferent between more and less and between this and that, the problems of allocating scarce resources would be trivialized. The necessity of choice, whether social or individual, would seem absurd. However, people persist in preferring certain “states of the world” to others. As a society is made up of individuals, it seems reasonable that a society's preferences should be “made up” of the preferences of its members. Therefore, any social welfare function, W, should be a function of the individual welfare functions, wi. That is,

Details

Studies in Economics and Finance, vol. 2 no. 2
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1086-7376

Book part
Publication date: 23 October 2023

Nathaniel T. Wilcox

The author presents new estimates of the probability weighting functions found in rank-dependent theories of choice under risk. These estimates are unusual in two senses. First…

Abstract

The author presents new estimates of the probability weighting functions found in rank-dependent theories of choice under risk. These estimates are unusual in two senses. First, they are free of functional form assumptions about both utility and weighting functions, and they are entirely based on binary discrete choices and not on matching or valuation tasks, though they depend on assumptions concerning the nature of probabilistic choice under risk. Second, estimated weighting functions contradict widely held priors of an inverse-s shape with fixed point well in the interior of the (0,1) interval: Instead the author usually finds populations dominated by “optimists” who uniformly overweight best outcomes in risky options. The choice pairs used here mostly do not provoke similarity-based simplifications. In a third experiment, the author shows that the presence of choice pairs that provoke similarity-based computational shortcuts does indeed flatten estimated probability weighting functions.

Details

Models of Risk Preferences: Descriptive and Normative Challenges
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-83797-269-2

Keywords

Article
Publication date: 1 December 1997

James H. Bookbinder and Maureen E. Lynch

Decision analysis in management science employs concepts from economics such as utility functions and indifference curves. A utility function U models the “satisfaction” that a…

1997

Abstract

Decision analysis in management science employs concepts from economics such as utility functions and indifference curves. A utility function U models the “satisfaction” that a customer obtains from logistics service. Here U depends on two attributes (lead time, fill rate) whose values more directly represent customer service. The shipper can, at additional cost, improve either or both of these attributes. Constructs and maximizes various utility functions U given a total budget B for distribution service. Finds that without increasing the budget overall logistics service can often be improved from the customer’s point of view. Whether U is additive or multiplicative, a customer’s utility resulting from the optimal lead time and fill rate is typically 20 per cent higher than when those attribute levels are set intuitively (without reference to customer preferences and tradeoffs expressed by U). Gives some introduction to decision analysis (certainty equivalent, risk aversion, …) to aid in understanding the functional forms employed for U and methods of solution, rendering the paper more self‐contained.

Details

International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, vol. 27 no. 9/10
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0960-0035

Keywords

Article
Publication date: 18 July 2016

Wenxue Lu, Lihan Zhang and Fan Bai

The learning ability on critical bargaining information contributes to accelerating construction claim negotiations in the win-win situation. The purpose of this paper is to study…

Abstract

Purpose

The learning ability on critical bargaining information contributes to accelerating construction claim negotiations in the win-win situation. The purpose of this paper is to study how to apply Zeuthen strategy and Bayesian learning to simulate the dynamic bargaining process of claim negotiations with the consideration of discount factor and risk attitude.

Design/methodology/approach

The authors first adopted certainty equivalent method and curve fitting to build a party’s own curve utility function. Taking the opponent’s bottom line as the learning goal, the authors introduced Bayesian learning to refine former predicted linear utility function of the opponent according to every new counteroffer. Both parties’ utility functions were revised by taking discount factors into consideration. Accordingly, the authors developed a bilateral learning model in construction claim negotiations based on Zeuthen strategy.

Findings

The consistency of Zeuthen strategy and the Nash bargaining solution model guarantees the effectiveness of the bilateral learning model. Moreover, the illustrative example verifies the feasibility of this model.

Research limitations/implications

As the authors developed the bilateral learning model by mathematical deduction, scholars are expected to collect empirical cases and compare actual solutions and model solutions in order to modify the model in future studies.

Practical implications

Negotiators could refer to this model to make offers dynamically, which is favorable for the parties to reach an agreement quickly and to avoid the escalation of claims into disputes.

Originality/value

The proposed model provides a supplement to the existing studies on dynamic construction claim negotiations.

Details

Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, vol. 23 no. 4
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0969-9988

Keywords

Book part
Publication date: 3 June 2008

James C. Cox and Vjollca Sadiraj

Much of the literature on theories of decision making under risk has emphasized differences between theories. One enduring theme has been the attempt to develop a distinction…

Abstract

Much of the literature on theories of decision making under risk has emphasized differences between theories. One enduring theme has been the attempt to develop a distinction between “normative” and “descriptive” theories of choice. Bernoulli (1738) introduced log utility because expected value theory was alleged to have descriptively incorrect predictions for behavior in St. Petersburg games. Much later, Kahneman and Tversky (1979) introduced prospect theory because of the alleged descriptive failure of expected utility (EU) theory (von Neumann & Morgenstern, 1947).

Details

Risk Aversion in Experiments
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-84950-547-5

1 – 10 of over 40000