Politická ekonomie 2008, 56(2):242-256 | DOI: 10.18267/j.polek.639

Bližší pohled na užitek maximalizovaný ekonomickými subjekty

Michal Skořepa
Česká národní banka; Univerzita Karlova v Praze.

A closer look at utility maximised by economic agents

The relatively new stream of research on various types of utilities is reviewed and discussed together with some of its implications. The distinction is explained among experienced utility, remembered utility and predicted utility as three candidates for decision utility. Examples of selected empirical findings are given which show discrepancies, first, between past experienced utility and remembered utility and, second, between predicted utility and actual future experienced utility. Some critical reactions to the findings are briefly mentioned as well as implications for the debate on some important moral issues such as paternalism and HIV testing. It is concluded that there may be some methodological doubts about the empirical evidence available so far but even so, the evidence indicates that the tendency of models in economics to work with "the" utility to be maximised may be an overly simplified picture of the actual process of evaluation of outcomes.

Keywords: utility, experienced utility, remembered utility, predicted utility, empathy gap, temptation gap
JEL classification: D10, D46

Published: April 1, 2008  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Skořepa, M. (2008). A closer look at utility maximised by economic agents. Politická ekonomie56(2), 242-256. doi: 10.18267/j.polek.639
Download citation

References

  1. ARIELY, D.; LOEWENSTEIN, G. 2000. When does duration matter in judgment and decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2000, vol. 129, no. 4, s. 508-523. Go to original source...
  2. ARIELY, D.; KAHNEMAN, D.; LOEWENSTEIN, G. 2000. Joint comment on "When does duration matter in judgment and decision making?" [ARIELY; LOEWENSTEIN, 2000]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2000, vol. 129, no. 4, s. 524-529. Go to original source...
  3. FREDERICK, S.; KAHNEMAN, D. 2002. Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In GILOVICH, T.; GRIFFIN, D.; KAHNEMAN, D. (eds.). Heuristics & Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. New York : Cambridge University Press, 2002.
  4. KAHNEMAN, D. 1994. New challenges to the rationality assumption. Journal for Institutional and Theoretical Economics. 1994, vol. 150, no. 1, s. 18-36. Repr. in KAHNEMAN, D.; TVERSKY, A. (eds.). Choices, Values, and Frames. New York : Russell Sage Foundation, 2000.
  5. KAHNEMAN, D.; FREDRICKSON, B. L.; SCHREIBER, C. A.; REDELMEIER, D. A. 1993. When more pain is preferred to less: Adding a better end. Psychological Science. 1993, vol. 4, no. 6, s. 401-405. Go to original source...
  6. KAHNEMAN, D.; WAKKER, P.; SARIN, R. 1997. Back to Bentham? Explorations of experienced utility. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 1997, vol. 112, no. 2, s. 375-405. Go to original source...
  7. LOEWENSTEIN, G.; O'DONOGHUE, T.; RABIN, M. 2003. Projection bias in predicting future utility. Quarterly J. of Economics. 2003, vol. 118, no. 4, s. 1209-1248. Go to original source...
  8. LOEWENSTEIN, G.; SCHKADE, D. 1999. Wouldn't it be nice? Predicting future feelings. In KAHNEMAN, D.; DIENER, E., SCHWARZ, N. (eds.). Well-being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology. New York : Russell Sage Foundation, 1999.
  9. READ, D.; Van LEEUWEN, B. 1998. Predicting hunger: The effects of appetite and delay on choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 1998, vol. 76, no. 2, s. 189-205. Go to original source...
  10. SELTEN, R. 1994. New challenges to the rationality assumption: comment. Journal for Institutional and Theoretical Economics. 1994, vol. 150, no. 1, s. 42-44.
  11. SIEFF, E. M.; DAWES, R. M.; LOEWENSTEIN, G. 1997. Anticipated versus actual responses to HIV Test Results. American Journal of Psychology. 1997, vol. 112, no. 2, s. 297-311. Go to original source...
  12. SKOŘEPA, M. 2004. Daniel Kahneman a psychologické základy ekonomie. Politická ekonomie. 2004, roč. 52, č. 2, s. 247-255. Go to original source...
  13. SUNSTEIN, C. 1997. Behavioral analysis of law. University of Chicago Law School. 1997, vol. 64, no. 4, s. 1175-1195. Go to original source...

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY NC ND 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.