Advertisement

Expected Utility Theory and Economic Behavior: Predicting Decision Making Based on the Expected Value of Utility

  • Kazuhisa TakemuraEmail author
Chapter
  • 372 Downloads

Abstract

Although economic behavior is often exhibited under conditions of uncertainty, we can decide future behavior to a certain extent by assigning a probability value to the uncertainty of the future.

Keywords

Expected value Expected utility theory St. Petersburg paradox Ellsberg’s paradox Allais paradox 

References

  1. Allais, M. (1953). Le comportement de l’homme rationnel devant le risque: Critique des postulats et axiomes de l’ ecole americaine. Econometrica, 21, 503–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Curley, S. P., & Yates, J. F. (1985). The center and range of the probability interval as factors affecting ambiguity preference. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 273–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axiom. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75, 643–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fox, C. R., & Tversky, A. (1995). Ambiguity aversion and comparative ignorance. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110, 585–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gilboa, I. (2009). Theory of decision under uncertainty. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Heath, C., & Tversky, A. (1991). Preference and belief: Ambiguity and competence in choice under uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 4, 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jensen, N. E. (1967). An introduction to Bernoullian utility theory. I. Utility functions. Swedish Journal of Economics, 69, 163–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Keren, G., & Gerritsen, L. E. M. (1999). On the robustness and possible accounts of ambiguity aversion. Acta Psychologica, 103, 149–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Masuda, S. (2010). Aimai na jōhō to seigyo gensō ga wariai no suitei ni oyobosu eikyō [Effects of ambiguous information and illusion of control on making proportion estimates]. Nihon Kansei Kougakukai Ronbunshi [Transactions of Japan Society of Kansei Engineering], 9(4), 232–240.Google Scholar
  10. Masuda, S., Sakagami, T., & Hirota, S. (2002). Sentaku no kikai ga aimaisei kihi ni ataeru eikyō: Kotonaru shurui no aimaisei deno kentō [The effect of available choices on ambiguity aversion; An examination of different types of ambiguity]. Shinrigaku Kenkyū [The Japanese Journal of Psychology], 73(1), 34–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Powell, M., & Ansic, D. (1997). Gender differences in risk behavior in financial decision-making: An experimental analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology, 18, 605–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Shigemasu, K. (1988). Aimaisa no ninchi ni okeru gōrisei [Rationality in probability judgement]. Kōdō keiryōgaku [The Japanese Journal of Behaviormetrics], 16(1), 39–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1974). Who accepts savage’s axiom? Behavioral Science, 19, 368–373.Google Scholar
  14. Takemura, K. (1996). Ishikettei to Sono Shien [Decision-making and support for decision-making]. In S. Ichikawa (Ed.), Ninchi Shinrigaku 4kan Shiko [Cognitive psychology vol. 4 thoughts] (pp. 81–105). Tokyo, JP: University of Tokyo Press.Google Scholar
  15. Takemura, K. (2014). Behavioral decision theory: Psychological and mathematical representations of human choice behavior. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Tamura, H., Nakamura, Y., & Fujita, S. (1997). Kōyō bunseki no sūri to ōyō [Mathematical principles and application of utility analysis]. Tokyo, JP: Corona Publishing.Google Scholar
  17. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297–323.Google Scholar
  18. von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944/1947). Theory and games and economic behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Yates, J. F., & Zukowski, L. G. (1976). Characterization of ambiguity in decision making. Behavioral Science, 21, 19–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyWaseda UniversityTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations