[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wrk/wcreta/69.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Incoherent Preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Charles-Cadogan, G.

    (University of Leicester)

Abstract
Under Bruno De Finetti’s coherence theory of additive probability, the expected value of a sequence of mutually exclusive bets should not expose the bettor to certain loss for any of the bets in the sequence (i.e. no formation of Dutch books). However, decision makers (DMs) are known to have non-additive probability preferences represented in the frequency domain. This conundrum of choice implies that DMs are incoherent. If so, then preference reversal (PR) is more likely to occur. That is, DMs response to choice and valuation procedures (with similar expected value) are more likely to be dissimilar or their preferences may appear to be intransitive. We prove that even when the true states of choice experiments are procedure invariance and transitive preferences, PR will still be observed because of : (1) phase incoherence between paired gambles with the same expected value–when probability cycles are incomplete, and (2) experimenter interference in probability measurement. We introduce a utility coherence ratio for paired gambles, and estimates from simulated phase transition from incoherent states to coherent states in binary choice to illustrate the theory. We find that coherence measures are very sensitive to measurement error, coherent states have higher frequency phase transition, and incoherent states represent momentary lapse in judgment that eventually disappear. So, Dutch books and PR are prevented.

Suggested Citation

  • Charles-Cadogan, G., 2021. "Incoherent Preferences," CRETA Online Discussion Paper Series 69, Centre for Research in Economic Theory and its Applications CRETA.
    • Handle: RePEc:wrk:wcreta:69
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/research/centres/creta/papers/manage/creta69_-_g_charles-cadogan.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Segal, Uzi, 1993. "Order indifference and rank-dependent probabilities," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 373-397.
    2. Rubinstein, Ariel & Segal, Uzi, 2012. "On the likelihood of cyclic comparisons," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 147(6), pages 2483-2491.
    3. Busemeyer, Jerome R. & Diederich, Adele, 2002. "Survey of decision field theory," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 345-370, July.
    4. Segal, Uzi, 1990. "Two-Stage Lotteries without the Reduction Axiom," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 58(2), pages 349-377, March.
    5. Robin M. Hogarth & Hillel J. Einhorn, 1990. "Venture Theory: A Model of Decision Weights," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(7), pages 780-803, July.
    6. Karni, Edi & Safra, Zvi, 1990. "Rank-Dependent Probabilities," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 100(401), pages 487-495, June.
    7. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. Luís Aguiar‐Conraria & Pedro C. Magalhães & Maria Joana Soares, 2012. "Cycles in Politics: Wavelet Analysis of Political Time Series," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 56(2), pages 500-518, April.
    9. Cho, Younghee & Luce, R. Duncan, 1995. "Tests of Hypotheses about Certainty Equivalents and Joint Receipt of Gambles," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 229-248, December.
    10. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Aurelien Baillon & Laetitia Placido & Peter P. Wakker, 2011. "The Rich Domain of Uncertainty: Source Functions and Their Experimental Implementation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 695-723, April.
    11. Loomes, Graham & Starmer, Chris & Sugden, Robert, 1991. "Observing Violations of Transitivity by Experimental Methods," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(2), pages 425-439, March.
    12. Drazen Prelec, 1998. "The Probability Weighting Function," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 497-528, May.
    13. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    14. Patrick M. Crowley, 2007. "A Guide To Wavelets For Economists," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(2), pages 207-267, April.
    15. Nicolas Jacquemet & Olivier L'Haridon, 2018. "Experimental Economics. Method and Applications," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-02303376, HAL.
    16. Einhorn, Hillel J & Hogarth, Robin M, 1986. "Decision Making under Ambiguity," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 225-250, October.
    17. Oben K. Bayrak & John D. Hey, 2017. "Expected utility theory with imprecise probability perception: explaining preference reversals," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(13), pages 906-910, July.
    18. Lopes, Lola L., 1996. "When Time Is of the Essence: Averaging, Aspiration, and the Short Run," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 179-189, March.
    19. Tversky, Amos & Slovic, Paul & Kahneman, Daniel, 1990. "The Causes of Preference Reversal," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(1), pages 204-217, March.
    20. Richard H. Thaler, 2008. "Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 15-25, 01-02.
    21. Ulrich Schmidt & John D. Hey, 2018. "Are Preference Reversals Errors? An Experimental Investigation," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 15, pages 353-364, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    22. Tversky, Amos & Wakker, Peter, 1995. "Risk Attitudes and Decision Weights," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 63(6), pages 1255-1280, November.
    23. Peter H. Farquhar, 1984. "State of the Art---Utility Assessment Methods," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(11), pages 1283-1300, November.
    24. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    25. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    26. Charles-Cadogan, G., 2018. "Probability interference in expected utility theory," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 163-175.
    27. Basieva, Irina & Khrennikova, Polina & Pothos, Emmanuel M. & Asano, Masanari & Khrennikov, Andrei, 2018. "Quantum-like model of subjective expected utility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 150-162.
    28. Camerer, Colin F, 1989. "An Experimental Test of Several Generalized Utility Theories," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 61-104, April.
    29. Neil Stewart & Stian Reimers & Adam J. L. Harris, 2015. "On the Origin of Utility, Weighting, and Discounting Functions: How They Get Their Shapes and How to Change Their Shapes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(3), pages 687-705, March.
    30. Frederick Mosteller & Philip Nogee, 1951. "An Experimental Measurement of Utility," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(5), pages 371-371.
    31. Kenneth R. Maccrimmon, 1968. "Descriptive and Normative Implications of the Decision-Theory Postulates," International Economic Association Series, in: Karl Borch & Jan Mossin (ed.), Risk and Uncertainty, chapter 0, pages 3-32, Palgrave Macmillan.
    32. David J. Butler & Graham C. Loomes, 2007. "Imprecision as an Account of the Preference Reversal Phenomenon," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(1), pages 277-297, March.
    33. Dierkes, Maik & Germer, Stephan & Sejdiu, Vulnet, 2020. "Probability distortion, asset prices, and economic growth," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Charles-Cadogan, G., 2018. "Probability interference in expected utility theory," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 163-175.
    2. Cathleen Johnson & Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Zhihua Li & Dennie Dolder & Peter P. Wakker, 2021. "Prince: An improved method for measuring incentivized preferences," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 62(1), pages 1-28, February.
    3. Ulrich Schmidt & Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden, 2008. "Third-generation prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 203-223, June.
    4. Charles-Cadogan, G., 2021. "Market Instability, Investor Sentiment, And Probability Judgment Error in Index Option Prices," CRETA Online Discussion Paper Series 71, Centre for Research in Economic Theory and its Applications CRETA.
    5. Horst Zank, 2010. "On probabilities and loss aversion," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(3), pages 243-261, March.
    6. Amit Kothiyal & Vitalie Spinu & Peter Wakker, 2014. "An experimental test of prospect theory for predicting choice under ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 1-17, February.
    7. Kim Kaivanto & Eike Kroll, 2014. "Alternation bias and reduction in St. Petersburg gambles," Working Papers 65600286, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    8. Graham Loomes & Ganna Pogrebna, 2017. "Do Preference Reversals Disappear When We Allow for Probabilistic Choice?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(1), pages 166-184, January.
    9. Laurent Denant-Boemont & Olivier L’Haridon, 2013. "La rationalité à l'épreuve de l'économie comportementale," Revue française d'économie, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 0(2), pages 35-89.
    10. Wilcox, Nathaniel T., 2011. "'Stochastically more risk averse:' A contextual theory of stochastic discrete choice under risk," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 162(1), pages 89-104, May.
    11. Peter Brooks & Simon Peters & Horst Zank, 2014. "Risk behavior for gain, loss, and mixed prospects," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(2), pages 153-182, August.
    12. Nathaniel T. Wilcox, 2015. "Error and Generalization in Discrete Choice Under Risk," Working Papers 15-11, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    13. Bernasconi, Michele & Bernhofer, Juliana, 2020. "Catch Me If You Can: Testing the reduction of compound lotteries axiom in a tax compliance experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    14. José Lara Resende & George Wu, 2010. "Competence effects for choices involving gains and losses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 109-132, April.
    15. Harin, Alexander, 2015. "Is Prelec’s function discontinuous at p = 1? (for the Einhorn Award of SJDM)," MPRA Paper 64672, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Thomas Epper & Helga Fehr-Duda, 2012. "The missing link: unifying risk taking and time discounting," ECON - Working Papers 096, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Oct 2018.
    17. Johannes G. Jaspersen & Richard Peter & Marc A. Ragin, 2023. "Probability weighting and insurance demand in a unified framework," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 48(1), pages 63-109, March.
    18. Charles-Cadogan, G., 2021. "Utility Representation in Abstract Wiener Space," CRETA Online Discussion Paper Series 70, Centre for Research in Economic Theory and its Applications CRETA.
    19. Krzysztof Kontek, 2018. "Boundary effects in the Marschak-Machina triangle," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(6), pages 587-606, November.
    20. repec:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:6:p:587-606 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Yaron Azrieli & Christopher P. Chambers & Paul J. Healy, 2020. "Incentives in experiments with objective lotteries," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(1), pages 1-29, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    preference reversal ; transitivity axiom ; probability phase incoherence ; wavelets ; probability weighting JEL codes: C00 ; C02 ; C44 ; D03 ; D81;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C00 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - General - - - General
    • C02 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - General - - - Mathematical Economics
    • C44 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - Operations Research; Statistical Decision Theory
    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wrk:wcreta:69. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Margaret Nash (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dewaruk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.