.png){kind=icon}
Return
Temptation-Driven Preferences
.png){kind=icon}
OA
AI
DOI：10.1111/j.1467-937X.2009.00560.x.png)
.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
Share.png){kind=icon}
Save
Abstract
En 中文
What behaviour can be explained using the hypothesis that the agent faces temptation but is otherwise a standard rational agent? In earlier work, Gul and Pesendorfer (2001) use a set betweenness axiom to restrict the set of preferences considered by Dekel, Lipman and Rustichini (2001) to those explainable via temptation. We argue that set betweenness rules out plausible and interesting forms of temptation including some which may be important in applications. We propose a pair of alternative axioms called DFC, desire for commitment, and AIC, approximate improvements are chosen. DFC characterizes temptation as situations in which given any set of alternatives, the agent prefers committing herself to some particular item from the set rather than leaving herself the flexibility of choosing later. AIC is based on the idea that if adding an option to a menu improves the menu, it is because that option is chosen under some circumstances. From this interpretation, the axiom concludes that if an improvement is worse (as a commitment) than some commitment from the menu, then the best commitment from the improved menu is strictly preferred to facing that menu. We show that these axioms characterize a natural generalization of the Gul-Pesendorfer representation.
Keywords:
SUBJECTIVE STATE-SPACE
REPRESENTING PREFERENCES
INDIVIDUALISTIC ETHICS
CARDINAL WELFARE
UTILITY
FLEXIBILITY
AI Summary
Key information extracted from the uploaded paper, including a brief overview, abstract, background, key highlights, visual analysis, and future outlook.
Journal
IF:
6.4
Papers:
2.5K
Citations:
2.1W
Organization
Cited Papers
ShareSaveShareSaveShareSave
ShareSaveShareSaveStopping Rules in Principal Components Analysis: A Comparison of Heuristical and Statistical Approaches.png)
Ecology
EcologyIF0
PREAI
ShareSave
View more