Advertisement

Journal of Risk and Uncertainty

, Volume 46, Issue 2, pp 175–189 | Cite as

The arguments of utility: Preference reversals in expected utility of income models

  • Luke Lindsay
Article

Abstract

There is a debate in the literature about the arguments of utility in expected utility theory. Some implicitly assume utility is defined on final wealth whereas others argue it may be defined on initial wealth and income separately. I argue that making income and wealth separate arguments of utility has important implications that may not be widely recognized. A framework is presented that allows the unified treatment of expected utility models and anomalies. I show that expected utility of income models can predict framing induced preference reversals, a willingness to pay-willingness to accept gap for lotteries, and choice-value preference reversals. The main contribution is a theorem. It is proved that for all utility functions where initial wealth and income enter separately, either there will be preference reversals or preferences can be represented by a utility function defined on final wealth alone.

Keywords

Expected utility theory Risk aversion Preference reversals 

JEL Classification

C90 D81 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Thomas Epper, Jacob Goeree, Konrad Mierendorff, Chris Starmer, Jingjing Zhang, and participants at the FUR XIV International Conference at Newcastle University, as well as the editor and one anonymous referee, for comments. I would like to thank the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant SNSF 138162) and the European Research Council (grant ESEI-249433) for financial support.

References

  1. Andersen, S., Harrison, G.W., Lau, M.I., Rutström, E.E. (2008). Eliciting risk and time preferences. Econometrica, 76, 583–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bateman, I., Munro, A., Rhodes, B., Starmer, C., Sugden, R. (1997). A test of the theory of reference-dependent preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 479–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cox, J.C., & Sadiraj, V. (2006). Small-and large-stakes risk aversion: Implications of concavity calibration for decision theory. Games and Economic Behavior, 56, 45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cubitt, R.P., Munro, A., Starmer, C. (2004). Testing explanations of preference reversal. The Economic Journal, 114, 709–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fudenberg, D., & Levine, D.K. (2006). A dual-self model of impulse control. American Economic Review, 96, 1449–1476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Grether, D.M., & Plott, C.R. (1979). Economic theory of choice and the preference reversal phenomenon. The American Economic Review, 69, 623–638.Google Scholar
  7. Harrison, G.W., List, J.A., Towe, C. (2007). Naturally occurring preferences and exogenous laboratory experiments: A case study of risk aversion. Econometrica, 75, 433–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Holt, C.A., & Laury, S.K. (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. American Economic Review, 92, 1644–1655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). The psychology of preferences. Scientific American, 246, 160–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L., Thaler, R.H. (1990). Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98(6), 1325–1348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Knetsch, J.L. (1989). The endowment effect and evidence of nonreversible indifference curves. American Economic Review, 79, 1277–1284.Google Scholar
  13. Koszegi, B., & Rabin, M. (2007). Reference-dependent risk attitudes. American Economic Review, 97, 1047–1073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. List, J.A. (2003). Does market experience eliminate market anomalies? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 41–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Markowitz, H. (1952). The utility of wealth. Journal of Political Economy, 60, 151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pratt, J.W. (1964). Risk aversion in the small and in the large. Econometrica, 32, 122–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rabin, M. (2000). Risk aversion and expected-utility theory: A calibration theorem. Econometrica, 68, 1281–1281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rabin, M., & Thaler, R.H. (2001). Anomalies: Risk aversion. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15, 219–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rubinstein, A. (2006). Dilemmas of an economic theorist. Econometrica, 74, 865–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Savage, L.J. (1954). The foundation of statistics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  21. Schmidt, U., Starmer, C., Sugden, R. (2008). Third-generation prospect theory. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 36, 203–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sugden, R. (2003). Reference-dependent subjective expected utility. Journal of Economic Theory, 111, 172–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1947). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Wakker, P.P. (2005). Formalizing reference dependence and initial wealth in Rabin’s calibration theorem. http://people.few.eur.nl/wakker/pdf/calibcsocty05.pdf.
  27. Wakker, P.P. (2008). Explaining the characteristics of the power (CRRA) utility family. Health Economics, 17, 1329–1344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wakker, P.P. (2010). Prospect theory: For risk and ambiguity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations