Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T19:05:13.724Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“Consequentialism and Preference Formation in Economics and Game Theory”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2017

Daniel M. Hausman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

When students first study expected utility, they are inclined to interpret it as a theory that explains preferences for lotteries in terms of preferences for outcomes. Knowing U($100) and U($0), the agent can calculate that the utility of a gamble of $100 on a fair coin coming up heads is U($100)/2 + U($0)/2. Utilities are indices representing preferences, so in calculating the utility of the gamble, one is apparently giving a causal explanation for the agent's preference for the gamble.

Type
Papers
Information
Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements , Volume 59 , December 2006 , pp. 111 - 129
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy and the contributors 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Blount, Sally. 1995. ‘When Social Outcomes Aren't Fair: The Effect of Causal Attributions on Preferences,’ Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 63: 131–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewey, John. 1922. Human Nature and Conduct. Rpt. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
Hammond, Peter. 1988a. ‘Consequentialism and the Independence Axiom.’ In Munier, B., ed. Risk, Decision and Rationality. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 503–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, Peter. 1988b. ‘Consequentialist Foundations for Expected Utility.’ Theory and Decision 25: 25–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKelvey, Richard and Palfrey, Thomas. 1992. ‘An Experimental Study of the Centipede Game.’ Econometrica 60: 803–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, Amartya. 1997. ‘Maximization and the Act of Choice.’ Econometrica 65: 745–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weibull, Jörgen. 2004. ‘Testing Game Theory,’ in Huck, Steffen, ed. Advances in Understanding Strategic Behaviour, Game Theory, Experiments, and Bounded Rationality: Essays in Honor of Werner Güth. London: Macmillan, pp. 85–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar