MIT 14 123 - Critiques of Expected Utility Theory

Unformatted text preview:

Critiques of Expected Utility Theory 14.123 Microeconomic Theory III Muhamet Yildiz Allais Paradox  Choose A or B, then C or D. (A) Win $1 million for sure. (B) Win $5M with 10% chance, $1M with 89%, nothing with 1%. (C) Win $1M with 11% chance, nothing with 89%. (D) Win $5M with 10% chance, nothing with 90%.  Choice of A and D violates expected utility: 1Allais Paradox, Graphically Pr($0) Pr($5) 1 1 0 A ∙ ∙∙ B C D ∙ “Common consequence” paradox: A  B but D  C. B’ ∙ Indifference curves “Common ratio” paradox: A  B’ but D  C. Resolutions  indifference curves fan out.  Betweenness without Independence  Weighted Expected Utility: W(p) = ∑x∈X γ(x)p(x)u(x)/[∑x∈X γ(x)p(x)].  Rank-Dependent Expected Utility R(p) = ∫ u(x) dw(p(x)).  And many others 2Probability Weighting Function p w 0 1 1 Ellsberg Paradox  An urn contains 99 balls, colored, Red, Black and Green  There are 33 Red balls;  the combination of the other colors is not known.  You choose a color and we draw a ball.  If the ball is of the color chosen, you win $1. What color would you choose?  If the ball is not of the color chosen, you win $1. What color would you choose? 3Resolution: Ambiguity Aversion  Compounded lotteries are not reduced to simple lotteries  Ambiguity aversion: maxa minp Ep[u(a)]  Smooth ambiguity aversion: maxaE[v(Ep[u(a)])] Framing  “Outbreak of disease is about to kill 600 people. Choose treatment program A or B; then C or D.” (A) 400 people die. (B) Nobody dies with 1/3 chance, 600 people die with 2/3 chance. (C) 200 people saved. (D) All saved with 1/3 chance, nobody saved with 2/3 chance.  78% of subjects pick B, 28% of subjects (in different group) pick D. But A is equivalent to C, B is equivalent to D (apart from wording). 4Prospect Theory  “Edit the decision problem”  Distort the probabilities using inverted S shape  Apply a reference-dependent S shaped utility function  Risk aversion towards gains  Risk taking towards losses  “Loss aversion” Prospect Theory Reference-dependent Utility Function u xx0 5Prospect Theory Formula  U(x|w,x₀) = ∫u(x|x₀)dw(F(x))  Properties & Problems:  What is reference point?  Framing  Dynamic Programming 6MIT OpenCourseWarehttp://ocw.mit.edu 14.123 Microeconomic Theory III Spring 2010 For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit:


View Full Document

MIT 14 123 - Critiques of Expected Utility Theory

Download Critiques of Expected Utility Theory
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Critiques of Expected Utility Theory and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Critiques of Expected Utility Theory 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?