Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-03T09:16:45.577Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Optimal Choice in the Face of Risk: Decision Theory Meets Evolution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Samir Okasha
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The problem of how to make optimal choices in the face of risk (or uncertainty) arises in both economics/decision theory and also evolutionary biology; in the former, ‘optimal’ means utility maximizing, while in the latter it means fitness maximizing. This article explores the links, thematic and formal, between the economic and evolutionary theories of optimal choice in risky situations, with particular reference to the relationship between utility and fitness. It is argued that the link is strongest between evolution and ‘nonexpected’ utility theory, rather than traditional expected utility theory.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 78 , Issue 1 , January 2011 , pp. 83 - 104
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

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.)

Footnotes

‡

Thanks to Ken Binmore, John McNamara, Jonathan Wright, Brian Skyrms, David Makinson, Peter Godfrey-Smith, Patrick Forber, Cedric Paternotte, and Jonathan Grose for discussion and comments and to two anonymous referees for constructive criticism. Research for this article was supported by grant H/F017502/1 from the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council.

References

Allais, Maurice. 1952. “Le Comportement de L’homme Rationnel devant le Risque, Critique des Postulats et Axioms de L’école Américaine.” Econometrica 21:503–46.Google Scholar
Allais, Maurice, and Hagen, Ole, eds. 1979. Expected Utility Hypothesis and the Allais Paradox. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arrow, Kenneth. 1951. “Alternative Approaches to the Theory of Choice in Risk-Taking Situations.” Econometrica 19:404–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernoulli, Daniel. 1738. “Specimen Theoriae Novae do Mensura Sortis” [Exposition of a new theory on the measurement of risk]. Econometrica 22:23–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, William S. 2001. The Evolution of Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curry, Philip. 2001. “Decision Making under Uncertainty and the Evolution of Interdependent Preferences.” Journal of Economic Theory 98:357–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, Steven A., and Slatkin, Montgomery. 1990. “Evolution in Variable Environments.” American Naturalist 136:244–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillespie, John. 1977. “Natural Selection for Variances in Offspring Number: A New Evolutionary Principle.” American Naturalist 111:1010–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gintis, Herbert. 2009. The Bounds of Reason. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Grafen, Alan. 1999. “Formal Darwinism, the Individual-as-Maximizing-Agent Analogy, and Bet-Hedging.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B 266:799–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, Bengt. 1988. “Risk Aversion as a Problem of Conjoint Measurement.” In Decision, Probability and Utility, ed. Gärdenfors, Peter and Sahlin, Nils-Eric, 136–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Harless, David W., and Camerer, Colin F.. 1994. “The Predictive Utility of Generalized Expected Utility Theories.” Econometrica 62:1251–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hey, John D., and Orme, Chris. 1994. “Investigating Generalisations of Expected Utility Theory using Experimental Data.” Econometrica 62:1291–1326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houston, Alasdair I., and McNamara, John. 1999. Models of Adaptive Behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Houston, Alasdair I., McNamara, John, and Steer, Mark. 2007. “Do We Expect Natural Selection to Produce Rational Behaviour?” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 362:1531–43.Google ScholarPubMed
Kagel, John H., Battalio, Raymond, and Green, Leonard. 1995. Economic Choice Theory: An Experimental Analysis of Animal Behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, and Tversky, Amos. 1979. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk.” Econometrica 47:263–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewontin, Richard, and Cohen, Daniel. 1969. “On Population Growth in a Randomly Varying Environment.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 62:1056–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machina, Mark. 1982. “‘Expected Utility’ Analysis without the Independence Axiom.” Econometrica 50:277–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machina, Mark. 2008. “Non-expected Utility Theory.” In The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, ed. Durlauf, Steven N. and Blume, Lawrence E.. 2nd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
McNamara, John N. 1995. “Implicit Frequency-Dependence and Kin Selection in Fluctuating Environments.” Evolutionary Ecology 9:185–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okasha, Samir. 2007. “Rational Choice, Risk Aversion and Evolution.” Journal of Philosophy 104:217–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okasha, Samir. 2009. “Individuals, Groups, Fitness and Utility: Levels of Selection Meets Social Choice Theory.” Biology and Philosophy 24:561–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orr, H. Allen. 2007. “Absolute Fitness, Relative Fitness, and Utility.” Evolution 61:2997–3000.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quiggin, John. 1982. “A Theory of Anticipated Utility.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organisation 3:323–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quiggin, John. 1993. Generalized Expected Utility Theory: The Rank-Dependent Model. Amsterdam: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robson, Arthur. 1996. “A Biological Basis for Expected and Non-expected Utility.” Journal of Economic Theory 68:397–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savage, Leonard J. 1954. The Foundations of Statistics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Seger, Jon, and Brockmann, H. Jane. 1987. “What Is Bet-Hedging?” Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology 4:182–211.Google Scholar
Sinn, Hans-Werner. 2003. “Weber's Law and the Biological Evolution of Risk Preferences.” Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance Theory 28:87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stearns, Stephen C. 2000. “Daniel Bernoulli (1738): Evolution and Economics under Risk.” Journals of Biosciences 25:221–28.Google Scholar
von Neumann, John, and Morgenstern, Oskar. 1944. Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wakker, Peter P. 1994. “Separating Marginal Utility and Probabilistic Risk Aversion.” Theory and Decision 36:1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilbur, Henry M., and Rudolf, Volker H. W.. 2006. “Life-History Evolution in Uncertain Environments: Bet-Hedging in Time.” American Naturalist 168:398–411.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yaari, Menachem E. 1987. “The Dual Theory of Choice under Risk.” Econometrica 55:95–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar