Decisions Under Uncertainty as Bayesian Inference on Choice Options

References

• Abdellaoui M, Baillon A, Placido L, Wakker PP (2011) The rich domain of uncertainty: Source functions and their experimental implementation. Amer. Econom. Rev. 101:695–723.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Agranov M, Ortoleva P (2017) Stochastic choice and preferences for randomization. J. Political Econom. 125(1):40–68.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Alós-Ferrer C, Garagnani M (2022) Strength of preference and decisions under risk. J. Risk Uncertainty 64:309–339.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Alós-Ferrer C, Fehr E, Netzer N (2021) Time will tell: Recovering preferences when choices are noisy. J. Political Econom. 129(6):1828–1877.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Apesteguia J, Ballester MA (2018) Monotone stochastic choice models: The case of risk and time preferences. J. Political Econom. 126(1):74–106.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baillon A, Huang Z, Selim A, Wakker PP (2018a) Measuring ambiguity attitudes for all (natural) events. Econometrica 85:1839–1858.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baillon A, Bleichrodt H, Keskin U, L’Haridon O, Li C (2018b) The effect of learning on ambiguity attitudes. Management Sci. 64(5):2181–2198.Link, Google Scholar
• Bhui R, Lai L, Gershman SJ (2021) Resource-rational decision making. Current Opinion Behav. Sci. 41:15–21.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blavatskyy PR (2014) Stronger utility. Theory Decision 76(2):265–286.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bossaerts P, Yadav N, Murawski C (2019) Uncertainty and computational complexity. Philosophical Trans. Roy. Soc. B 374(1766):20180138.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bouchouicha R, Vieider FM (2017) Accommodating stake effects under prospect theory. J. Risk Uncertainty 55(1):1–28.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bruhin A, Fehr-Duda H, Epper T (2010) Risk and rationality: Uncovering heterogeneity in probability distortion. Econometrica 78(4):1375–1412.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Buschena D, Zilberman D (2000) Generalized expected utility, heteroscedastic error, and path dependence in risky choice. J. Risk Uncertainty 20(1):67–88.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Busemeyer JR, Townsend JT (1993) Decision field theory: A dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. Psych. Rev. 100(3):432.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Choi S, Kim J, Lee E, Lee J (2022) Probability weighting and cognitive ability. Management Sci. 68(7):4755–5555.Google Scholar
• Chuang Y, Schechter L (2015) Stability of experimental and survey measures of risk, time, and social preferences: A review and some new results. J. Development Econom. 117:151–170.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dayan P, Abbott LF (2001) Theoretical Neuroscience: Computational and Mathematical Modeling of Neural Systems. Computational Neuroscience Series, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Dehaene S (2003) The neural basis of the Weber–Fechner law: A logarithmic mental number line. Trends Cognition Sci. 7(4):145–147.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dehaene S, Changeux J-P (1993) Development of elementary numerical abilities: A neuronal model. J. Cognitive Neurosci. 5(4):390–407.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Di Falco S, Vieider FM (2022) Environmental adaptation of risk preferences. Econom. J. (London) 132(648):2737–2766.Google Scholar
• Dimmock SG, Kouwenberg R, Wakker PP (2015) Ambiguity attitudes in a large representative sample. Management Sci. 62(5):1363–1380.Link, Google Scholar
• Doya K, Ishii S, Pouget A, Rao RPN (2007) Bayesian Brain: Probabilistic Approaches to Neural Coding (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Einstein A (1922) Sidelights on Relativity (Methuen & Company Limited).Google Scholar
• Ellsberg D (1961) Risk, ambiguity and the savage axioms. Quart. J. Econom. 75(4):643–669.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Enke B, Graeber T (2023) Cognitive uncertainty. Quart. J. Econom. 138(4):2021–2067.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fechner GT (1860) Kessinger’s Legacy Reprints. Elemente der Psychophysik, 3rd ed., vol. 2 (Breitkopf & Härtel, Leipzig).Google Scholar
• Fehr-Duda H, Epper T (2012) Probability and risk: Foundations and economic implications of probability-dependent risk preferences. Annu. Rev. Econom. 4(1):567–593.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr-Duda H, Bruhin A, Epper TF, Schubert R (2010) Rationality on the rise: Why relative risk aversion increases with stake size. J. Risk Uncertainty 40(2):147–180.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gabaix X, Laibson D (2017) Myopia and discounting. NBER Working Paper No. 23254, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Gelman A, Hwang J, Vehtari A (2014a) Understanding predictive information criteria for bayesian models. Statist. Comput. 24(6):997–1016.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Dunson DB, Vehtari A, Rubin DB (2014b) Bayesian Data Analysis, vol. 2 (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL).Google Scholar
• Ghirardato P, Maccheroni F, Marinacci M (2004) Differentiating ambiguity and ambiguity attitude. J. Econom. Theory 118(2):133–173.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gold JI, Shadlen MN (2001) Neural computations that underlie decisions about sensory stimuli. Trends Cognition Sci. 5(1):10–16.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goldstein W, Einhorn H (1987) Expression theory and the preference reversal phenomena. Psych. Rev. 94:236–254.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gonzalez R, Wu G (1999) On the shape of the probability weighting function. Cognitition Psych. 38:129–166.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Green DM, Swets JA (1966) Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics, vol. 1 (Wiley, New York).Google Scholar
• Gul F, Pesendorfer W (2006) Random expected utility. Econometrica 74(1):121–146.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harvey BM, Klein BP, Petridou N, Dumoulin SO (2013) Topographic representation of numerosity in the human parietal cortex. Science 341(6150):1123–1126.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heath C, Tversky A (1991) Preference and belief: Ambiguity and competence in choice under uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertainty 4(1):5–28.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Herold F, Netzer N (2023) Second-best probability weighting. Games Econom. Behav. 138:112–125.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hey JD, Orme C (1994) Investigating generalizations of expected utility theory using experimental data. Econometrica 62(6):1291–1326.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hogarth RM, Einhorn HJ (1990) Venture theory: A model of decision weights. Management Sci. 36(7):780–803.Link, Google Scholar
• Holt CA, Laury SK (2002) Risk aversion and incentive effects. Amer. Econom. Rev. 92(5):1644–1655.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Howard MW, Shankar KH (2018) Neural scaling laws for an uncertain world. Psych. Rev. 125(1):47.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–291.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Khaw MW, Li Z, Woodford M (2021) Cognitive imprecision and small-stakes risk aversion. Rev. Econom. Stud. 88(4):1979–2013.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Knill DC, Pouget A (2004) The Bayesian brain: The role of uncertainty in neural coding and computation. Trends Neurosci. 27(12):712–719.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kruschke J (2014) Doing Bayesian Data Analysis: A Tutorial with R, JAGS, and Stan (Academic Press, New York).Google Scholar
• L’Haridon O, Vieider FM (2019) All over the map: A worldwide comparison of risk preferences. Quant. Econom. 10:185–215.Crossref, Google Scholar
• L’Haridon O, Oprea R, Polania R, Vieider FM (2023) Cognitive foundations of ambiguity attitudes. Working paper, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.Google Scholar
• L’Haridon O, Vieider FM, Aycinena D, Bandur A, Belianin A, Cingl L, Kothiyal A, et al. (2018) Off the charts: Massive unexplained heterogeneity in a global study of ambiguity attitudes. Rev. Econom. Statist. 100(4):664–677.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Loomes G (2010) Modeling choice and valuation in decision experiments. Psych. Rev. 117(3):902.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ma WJ, Kording KP, Goldreich D (2023) Bayesian Models of Perception and Action: An Introduction (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Mosteller F, Nogee P (1951) An experimental measurement of utility. J. Political Econom. 59(5):371–404.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Natenzon P (2019) Random choice and learning. J. Political Econom. 127(1):419–457.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Netzer N (2009) Evolution of time preferences and attitudes toward risk. Amer. Econom. Rev. 99(3):937–955.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Netzer N, Robson A, Steiner J, Kocourek P (2021) Endogenous risk attitudes. Working paper, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.Google Scholar
• Nieder A, Miller EK (2003) Coding of cognitive magnitude: Compressed scaling of numerical information in the primate prefrontal cortex. Neuron 37(1):149–157.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Oprea R (2022) Simplicity equivalents. Working paper.Google Scholar
• Oprea R, Vieider FM (2023) Risk, noise, and experience. Working Paper, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.Google Scholar
• Petzschner FH, Glasauer S, Stephan KE (2015) A Bayesian perspective on magnitude estimation. Trends Cognition Sci. 19(5):285–293.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Piazza M, Izard V, Pinel P, Le Bihan D, Dehaene S (2004) Tuning curves for approximate numerosity in the human intraparietal sulcus. Neuron 44(3):547–555.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Robson AJ (2001) The biological basis of economic behavior. J. Econom. Literature 39(1):11–33.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Savage LJ (1954) The Foundations of Statistics (Wiley, New York).Google Scholar
• Steiner J, Stewart C (2016) Perceiving prospects properly. Amer. Econom. Rev. 106(7):1601–1631.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Trautmann ST, van de Kuilen G (2015) Ambiguity attitudes. The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making (Wiley Blackwell).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A (1969) Intransitivity of preferences. Psych. Rev. 76(1):31.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D (1992) Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertainty 5:297–323.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vehtari A, Gelman A, Gabry J (2017) Practical Bayesian model evaluation using leave-one-out cross-validation and waic. Statist. Comput. 27(5):1413–1432.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vieider FM (2018) Violence and risk preference: Experimental evidence from Afghanistan: Comment. Amer. Econom. Rev. 108(8):2366–2382.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vieider FM (2021) Noisy coding of time delays and reward discounting. Working paper, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.Google Scholar
• Vilares I, Kording K (2011) Bayesian models: The structure of the world, uncertainty, behavior, and the brain. Ann. New York Acad. Sci. 1224(1):22.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wakker PP (2010) Prospect Theory for Risk and Ambiguity (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wilcox NT (2011) ‘Stochastically more risk averse’: A contextual theory of stochastic discrete choice under risk. J. Econometrics 162(1):89–104.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Woodford M (2012) Prospect theory as efficient perceptual distortion. Amer. Econom. Rev. 102(3):41–46.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yaari ME (1987) The dual theory of choice under risk. Econometrica 55(1):95–115.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zeisberger S, Vrecko D, Langer T (2012) Measuring the time stability of prospect theory preferences. Theory Decision 72(3):359–386.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhang H, Maloney LT (2012) Ubiquitous log odds: A common representation of probability and frequency distortion in perception, action, and cognition. Frontiers Neurosci. 6:1.Crossref, Google Scholar