Social preferences and expected utility

Abstract It is well known that ex-ante social preferences and expected utility are not always compatible. In this note, we introduce a novel framework that naturally separates social preferences from selfish preferences to answer the following question: What specific forms of social preferences can be accommodated within the expected utility paradigm? In a departure from existing frameworks, our framework shows that ex-ante social preferences can be reconciled with expected utility at the level of game utility, provided the corresponding non-expected utility component is absorbed by selfish utility. We also show that when a player’s preferences in both the game (against another player) and the associated decision problem (against Nature) conform to expected utility axioms, the permissible range of social preferences becomes notably restricted. Only under this stronger joint requirement do we reaffirm the existing literature’s key insight regarding the incompatibility of ex-ante inequality aversion with expected utility.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Theory and Decision
Published
2026-05-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-026-10138-3
Primary Topic
Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Social preferences and expected utility

Mehmet Mars Seven, Ronald Peeters
Theory and Decision
Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
article

Social preferences and expected utility

Mehmet Mars Seven, Ronald Peeters
article en

Abstract

Abstract It is well known that ex-ante social preferences and expected utility are not always compatible. In this note, we introduce a novel framework that naturally separates social preferences from selfish preferences to answer the following question: What specific forms of social preferences can be accommodated within the expected utility paradigm? In a departure from existing frameworks, our framework shows that ex-ante social preferences can be reconciled with expected utility at the level of game utility, provided the corresponding non-expected utility component is absorbed by selfish utility. We also show that when a player’s preferences in both the game (against another player) and the associated decision problem (against Nature) conform to expected utility axioms, the permissible range of social preferences becomes notably restricted. Only under this stronger joint requirement do we reaffirm the existing literature’s key insight regarding the incompatibility of ex-ante inequality aversion with expected utility.

Theory and Decision
King's College London (GB), University of Otago (NZ)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.