Economic Theory

, Volume 46, Issue 1, pp 85–98 | Cite as

On preferences with infinitely many subjective states

Research Article

Abstract

Models with subjective state spaces have been extremely useful in capturing novel psychological phenomena that consist of both a preference for flexibility and for commitment. Interpreting the utility representations of preferences as capturing these phenomena requires one to use the notion of a sign of a state. For linear preferences, we completely characterise the sign of a state in terms of its analytic representation as an integral with respect to a signed measure. In models with finitely many states, a state is either positive or negative, but never both. We show that in models with infinitely many states, a state can be both positive and negative. Thus, models with finitely many states may not capture all the behavioural features of an infinite model. Our methods are also useful in constructing utility functionals over menus with desired local properties.

Keywords

Subjective state space Temptation Preference for flexibility Preference for commitment 

JEL Classification

D81 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Dekel E., Lipman B., Rustichini A.: Representing preferences with a unique subjective state space. Econometrica 69(4), 891–934 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dekel E., Lipman B., Rustichini A., Sarver T.: Representing preferences with a unique subjective state space: a corrigendum. Econometrica 75(2), 591–600 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dekel E., Lipman B., Rustichini A.: Temptation driven preferences. Rev Econ Stud 76(3), 937–971 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dudley R.M.: Real Analysis and Probability, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)Google Scholar
  5. Epstein L: An axiomatic model of non-Bayesian updating. Rev Econ Stud 73, 413–436 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gul F., Pesendorfer W.: Temptation and self-control. Econometrica 69, 1403–1435 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kopylov I.: Finite additive utility representations for preferences over menus. J Econ Theory 144(1), 354–374 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lee J.M.: Introduction to Smooth Manifolds. Springer, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  9. Sagi J.: What is an endogenous state space. Econ Theory 27, 305–320 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Sarver T.: Anticipating regret: why fewer options may be better. Econometrica 76(2), 263–305 (2008)Google Scholar
  11. Schneider R.: Convex Bodies: The Brunn–Minkowski Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Economics CB 3305University of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations