The impact of violations of expected utility theory on choices in the face of multiple risks

IF 2.8 3区 经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS
{"title":"The impact of violations of expected utility theory on choices in the face of multiple risks","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jocm.2024.100511","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Use of preference information to infer risk tolerance has increased in recent years as a way to inform benefit-risk evaluations in regulatory and medical decision making. However, a framework for the measurement of tolerance for multiple uncertain outcomes has not been formalized when choices do not comply with expected utility theory (EUT). We developed a formal analytic framework for the measurement of preferences through choices under uncertainty with multiple risks. Based on the analytic framework, we find that violations of EUT can lead to interaction effects between uncertain outcomes, not just nonlinearities in the disutility of risks. Our framework also implies that measures of risk tolerance derived from utility, such as maximum-acceptable risk, must consider all relevant risks jointly if their effect on choices is expected to violate EUT. Somewhat reassuringly, however, we find that cross-outcome effects are expected to be negligible when the probabilities of other outcomes approach certainty. Finally, we identify a simple test that can help evaluate whether preferences for one uncertain outcome are affected by other uncertain outcomes.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46863,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Choice Modelling","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755534524000435/pdfft?md5=78daf7025ef5640366a9f49a1b357ad5&pid=1-s2.0-S1755534524000435-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Choice Modelling","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755534524000435","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Use of preference information to infer risk tolerance has increased in recent years as a way to inform benefit-risk evaluations in regulatory and medical decision making. However, a framework for the measurement of tolerance for multiple uncertain outcomes has not been formalized when choices do not comply with expected utility theory (EUT). We developed a formal analytic framework for the measurement of preferences through choices under uncertainty with multiple risks. Based on the analytic framework, we find that violations of EUT can lead to interaction effects between uncertain outcomes, not just nonlinearities in the disutility of risks. Our framework also implies that measures of risk tolerance derived from utility, such as maximum-acceptable risk, must consider all relevant risks jointly if their effect on choices is expected to violate EUT. Somewhat reassuringly, however, we find that cross-outcome effects are expected to be negligible when the probabilities of other outcomes approach certainty. Finally, we identify a simple test that can help evaluate whether preferences for one uncertain outcome are affected by other uncertain outcomes.

违反预期效用理论对面临多重风险时的选择的影响
近年来,越来越多地使用偏好信息来推断风险承受能力,以此作为监管和医疗决策中效益-风险评估的一种方法。然而,当选择不符合预期效用理论(EUT)时,衡量对多种不确定结果的容忍度的框架尚未正式确定。我们开发了一个正式的分析框架,用于衡量在具有多重风险的不确定性条件下通过选择做出的偏好。基于该分析框架,我们发现违反预期效用理论会导致不确定结果之间的互动效应,而不仅仅是风险效用的非线性。我们的框架还意味着,如果预期风险对选择的影响会违反 EUT,那么从效用(如最大可接受风险)中得出的风险容忍度衡量标准就必须联合考虑所有相关风险。不过,令人稍感欣慰的是,我们发现当其他结果的概率接近确定时,交叉结果的影响预计可以忽略不计。最后,我们确定了一个简单的检验方法,可以帮助评估对一种不确定结果的偏好是否会受到其他不确定结果的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
31
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信