Temptation-Driven Preferences

Eddie Dekel, Barton Lipman () and Aldo Rustichini

The Review of Economic Studies, 2009, vol. 76, issue 3, 937-971

Abstract: "My own behaviour baffles me. For I find myself not doing what I really want to do but doing what I really loathe." Saint PaulWhat 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. Copyright , Wiley-Blackwell.

Date: 2009
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (62)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/j.1467-937X.2009.00560.x (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
Working Paper: Temptation-Driven Preferences (2006)
Working Paper: Temptation–Driven Preferences (2006)
Working Paper: Temptation–Driven Preferences (2006)
Working Paper: Temptation–Driven Preferences (2005)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:restud:v:76:y:2009:i:3:p:937-971

Access Statistics for this article

The Review of Economic Studies is currently edited by Thomas Chaney, Xavier d’Haultfoeuille, Andrea Galeotti, Bård Harstad, Nir Jaimovich, Katrine Loken, Elias Papaioannou, Vincent Sterk and Noam Yuchtman

More articles in The Review of Economic Studies from Review of Economic Studies Ltd
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().