Research ArticleOpen AccessGoogle Scholar indexed
A Geometric Approach to Temptation and Self-Control
Graduate School of Business Administration, Kobe University, Kobe, Japan
- 1 Graduate School of Business Administration, Kobe University, Kobe, Japan
Theoretical Economics Letters·Volume 06 (2016)·Pages 539–548·Published 31 May 2016·DOI10.4236/tel.2016.63060
Copy link · social · email
Abstract
By making use of a geometry of preferences, Abe (2012) proves the Gul and Pesendorfer’s utility representation theorem about temptation without self-control. This companion paper provides a similar proof for the Gul and Pesendorfer's utility representation theorem about temptation and costly self-control. As a result, the both theorems are proved in the unified way.
KeywordsTemptationSelf-ControlUtility RepresentationGeometric Approach
- Gul, F. and Pesendorfer, W. (2004) Self-Control, Revealed Preference and Consumption Choice. Review of Economic Dynamics, 7, 243-264. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.red.2003.11.002
- Lipman, B.L. and Pesendorfer, W. (2013) Temptation. In: Acemoglu, D., Arellano, M. and Dekel, E., Eds., Advances in Economics and Econometrics: Tenth World Congress Volume 1, Cambridge University Press, New York, 243-288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139060011.009
- Gul, F. and Pesendorfer, W. (2001) Temptation and Self-Control. Econometrica, 69, 1403-1435. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-0262.00252
- Abe, K. (2012) A Geometric Approach to Temptation. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 48, 92-97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmateco.2012.01.002
- Kreps, D.M. (1988) Notes on the Theory of Choice. Westview Press, Boulder.
- Kopylov, I. (2009) Temptations in General Settings. The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, 9, (Advances), Article~31. http://dx.doi.org/10.2202/1935-1704.1558
- Harsanyi, J.C. (1955) Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility. Journal of Political Economy, 63, 309-321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/257678
- Kelly, J.L. (1975) General Topology. Springer-Verlag, New York.
- Chatterjee, K. and Krishna, R.V. (2008) A Geometric Approach to Continuous Expected Utility. Economics Letters, 98, 89-94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2007.04.011
- Dekel, E., Lipman, B.L. and Rustichini, A. (2009) Temptation-Driven Preferences. Review of Economic Studies, 76, 937-971. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-937X.2009.00560.x
- Kopylov, I. (2009) Finite Additive Utility Representations for Preferences over Menus. Journal of Economic Theory, 144, 354-374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jet.2008.06.003
- MacCrimmon, K.R. and Larsson, S. (1979) Utility Theory: Axioms versus ‘Paradoxes’. In: Allais, M. and Hagen, O. Eds., Expected Utility Hypotheses and the Allais Paradox, D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, 333-409. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7629-1_15
- Machina, M.J. (1983) Generalized Expected Utility Analysis and the Nature of Observed Violations of the Independence Axiom. In: Stigum, B.P. and Wenstop, F., Eds., Foundations of Utility and Risk Theory with Applications, D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, 263-293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1590-4_15