Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Properties of Utility Theories and Related Empirical Phenomena

  • Chapter
Utility Theories: Measurements and Applications

Part of the book series: Studies in Risk and Uncertainty ((SIRU,volume 3))

Abstract

Expected utility theory, probably the most widely accepted normative theory for decision making under risk, has several required properties. Since different sets of axioms can be combined to result in the expected utility model, the term property can refer to either an axiom or a characteristic resulting from combinations of axioms. Since most properties are seen as appropriate components of a normative theory of choice, they could be referred to as principles or desiderata to emphasize their normative status (see Howard, 1992). But, not all properties hold consistently in choices made by experimental subjects. The resulting conflict between the normative appeal of expected utility theory and its shortcomings as a descriptive model of choice has been a motivating force in the development of generalized utility theories which relax the requirement that various properties hold.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allais, M. (1953). “Le Comportemente de L’homme Rationnel Devant le Risque: Critique des Postulats et Axiomes de L’ecole Americaine.” Econometrica, 21, 503–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, J.L. (1986). “A New Model of Decisions Under Risk Using the Concept of Lottery Dependent Utility Function. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Graduate School of Management, University of California at Los Angeles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, J., and R. Sarin (1987). “Lottery Dependent Utility.” Management Science, 33(11), 1367–1382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, J., and R. Sarin (1989). “Decision Analysis Using Lottery Dependent Utility. ” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2, 105–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, D. (1982). “Regret in Decision Making Under Uncertainty.” Operations Research, 30, 961–981.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bostic, R., Herrnstein, R.J., and R.D. Luce (1990). “The Effect on the Preference-reversal Phenomenon of Using Choice Indifferences.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 13, 193–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunn, D. (1984). Applied Decision Analysis. McGraw-Hill, New York. Camerer, C. (1989). “An Experimental Test of Several Generalized Utility Theories.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2, 61–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, C. (1992). “Recent tests of generalizations of expected utility theory.” In W. Edwards (Ed.), Utility Theories: Measurements and Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chew, S.H. (1983). “A Generalization of the Quasilinear Mean with Applications to the Measurement of Income Inequality and Decision Theory Resolving the Allais Paradox. Econometrica, 51, 1065–1092.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chew, S.H. (1985). “Implicit-weighted and Semi-weighted Utility Theories, M-estimators, and Nondemand Revelation of Second-price Auctions for an Uncertain Auctioned Object.” Working paper #155. Department of Political Economy, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chew, S.H. and L. Epstein (1989). “Non-expected Utility Preferences in a Temporal Framework with an Application to Consumption-savings Behavior.” Working paper. Department of Political Economy, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chew, S.H., Epstein, L., and U. Segal (1988). “Mixture Symmetric Utility Theory.” Working paper. University of Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chew, S.H., and K.R. MacCrimmon (1979a). “Alpha-nu Choice Theory: A Generalization of Expected Utility Theory.” Working paper #669. Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chew, S.H., and K.R. MacCrimmon (1979b). “Alpha Utility Theory, Lottery Composition and the Allais Paradox.” Working paper #686. Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chew, S.H., and W.S. Waller (1986). “Empirical Tests of Weighted Utility Theory.” Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 30, 55–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coombs, C. (1969). “Portfolio Theory: A Theory of Risky Decision Making.” La Decision. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coombs, C. (1975). “Portfolio Theory and the Measurement of Risk.” In M. Kaplan and S. Schwartz (Eds.), Human Judgment and Decision Processes (pp. 63–85). Academic Press New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coombs, C., and L. Huang (1970). “Tests of a Portfolio Theory of Risk Preference. ” Journal of Experimental Psychology, 85(1), 23–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Currim, I.S., and R. Sarin (1989). “Prospect Versus Utility.” Management Science, 35(1), 22–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Currim, I.S., and R. Sarin (in press). “Robustness of Expected Utility Model in Predicting Individual Choices.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, R., and L.R. Keller (1990). “An Experimental Evaluation of the Descriptive Validity of Lottery Dependent Utility Theory.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 3, 115–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, R., and L.R. Keller (forthcoming 1992). “Choice-based Assessment of Utility Functions.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dekel, E. (1986). “An Axiomatic Characterization of Preferences Under Uncertainty: Weakening the Independence Axiom.” Journal of Economic Theory, 40, 304–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J.S., and R. Sarin (1982). “Relative Risk Aversion.” Management Science, 28(8), 875–886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, W. (1955). “The Prediction of Decisions Among Bets.” Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50, 201–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, W. (1962). “Subjective Probabilities Inferred from Decisions.” Psychological Review, 69, 109–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellsberg, D. (1961). “Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75, 643–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P.C. (1983). “Transitive Measurable Utility.” Journal of Economic Theory, 31, 293–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P.C. (1984). “SSB Utility Theory: An Economic Perspective.” Mathematical Social Science, 8, 63–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P.C. (1988). Nonlinear Preference and Utility Theory. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P.C. (1989). “Foundations of Decision Analysis: Along the Way.” Management Science, 35(4), 387–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, J. and B. Jullien (1988). “Ordinal Independence in Nonlinear Utility Theory. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1(4), 355–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grether, D.M. and C.R. Plott (1979). “Economic Theory of Choice and the Preferences Reversal Phenomenon.” American Economic Review, 69(4), 623–638.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, P.J. (1988). “Consequentialist Foundations for Expected Utility.” Theory and Decision, 25, 25–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, R.A. (1992). “In Praise of the Old Time Religion:’ In W. Edwards (Ed.), Utility Theories: Measurements and Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky (1979). “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk.” Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R.L. (1992). “On the Foundations of Prescriptive Decision Analysis.” In W. Edwards (Ed.) Utility Theories: Measurements and Applications Kluwer Academic Publishers. Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R.L. and H. Raiffa (1976). Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, L.R. (1985a). “The Effects of Problem Representation on the Sure-thing and Substitution Principles.” Management Science, 31(6), 738–751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, L.R. (1985b). “Testing the `Reduction of Compound Alternatives’ Principle.” OMEGA, The International Journal of Management Science, 13(4), 349–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, L.R. (1985c). “An Empirical Investigation of Relative Risk Aversion. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 15(4), 475–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, L.R. (1989a). “Decision Research with Descriptive, Prescriptive, and Normative Purposes-Some Comments.” In Annals of Operations Research, 19. Volume edited by LaValle, I. and Fishburn, P. on “Choice Under Uncertainty,” pp. 485–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, L.R. (1989b). “The Role of Generalized Utility Theories in Descriptive, Prescriptive, and Normative Decision Analysis.” Information and Decision Technologies, 15, 259–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaValle, I.H. (1989). “New Choice Models Raise New Difficulties: Comment on `Analytical Issues in Decision Methodology’.” In I. Horowitz (Ed.), Organization and Decision Theory. Kluwer-Nijhoff, Boston, pp. 63–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaValle, I.H. (1992). “Small Worlds and Sure Things: Consequentialism by the Back Door. In W. Edwards (Ed.), Utility Theories: Measurements and Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Boston MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaValle, I.H. and K.R. Wapman (1986). “Rolling Back Decision Trees Requires the Independence Axiom!” Management Science, 32, 382–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leland, J. (1988). “A Theory of `Approximate’ Expected Utility Maximization.” Working paper. Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, S. and P. Slovic (1971). Reversals of Preference Between Bids and Choices in Gambling Decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89(1), 46–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loomes, G. and R. Sugden (1982). “Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice Under Uncertainty.” Economic Journal, 92, 805–824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R.D. (1992). “Rational Versus Plausible Accounting Equivalences in Preference Judgments.” In W. Edwards (Ed.), Utility Theories: Measure-ments and Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R.D. and L. Narens (1985). “Classification of Concatenation Structures According to Scale Type.” Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 29, 1–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Machina, M. (1982). “ `Expected Utility’ Analysis Without the Independence Axiom.” Econometrica, 50, 277–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Machina, M.J. (1987a). “Choice Under Uncertainty: Problems Solved and Unsolved.” Economic Perspectives, 1(1), 121–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Machina, M.J. (1987b). “Decision-making in the Presence of Risk.” Science, 236, 537–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Machina, M.J. (1989). “Dynamic Consistency and Non-expected Utility Models of Choice Under Uncertainty”. Journal of Economic Literature, XXVII, December, 1622–1668.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCrimmon, K. (1965). “An Experimental Study of the Decision Making Behavior of Business Executives. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Graduate School of Management, University of California, Los Angeles, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCrimmon, K. and Larsson, S. (1979). “Utility Theory: Axioms Versus Paradoxes.” In M. Allais and O. Hagen (Eds.), Expected Utility Hypotheses and the Allais Paradox. Reidel, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miyamoto, J. (1992). “Generic Analysis of Utility Models.” In W. Edwards (Ed.), Utility Theories: Measurements and Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quiggin, J. (1982). “A Theory of Anticipated Utility”. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3, 323–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarin, R.K. (1989). “Analytical Issues in Decision Methodology.” In I. Horowitz (Ed.), Decision and Organization Theory. Kluwer-Nijhoff, Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarin, R.K. (1992). “What Now for Generalized Utility Theory?” In W. Edwards (Ed.), Utility Theories: Measurements and Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage, L.J. (1954). The Foundations of Statistics. Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Segal, U. (1984). “Nonlinear Decision Weights with the Independence Axiom.” Working paper. Economics Department, University of California, Los Angeles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Segal, U. (1992). “The Independence Axiom Versus the Reduction Axiom: Must we Have Both?” In W. Edwards (Ed.), Utility Theories: Measurements and Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shafir, E.B., Osherson, D.N., and E.E. Smith (1989). “An Advantage Model of Choice.” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2, 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., Sattath, S., and P. Slovic (1988). “Contingent Weighting in Judgment and Choice.” Psychological Review, 95(3), 371–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Neumann, J., and O. Morgenstern (1947). Theory of Games and Linear Programming. Second edition. Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Winterfeldt, D., and W. Edwards (1986). Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research. Cambridge University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wakker, P.P. (1988). “Nonexpected Utility as Aversion of Information.” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 1, 169–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M., and Camerer, C. (1987). “Recent Developments in Modelling Preferences Under Risk.” OR Spektrum, 9, 129–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yaari, M.E. (1987). “The Dual Theory of Choice Under Risk.” Econometrica, 55, 95–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. L. Robin Keller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Social Science Research Institute, University of Southern California, USA

    Ward Edwards

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1992 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Keller, L.R. (1992). Properties of Utility Theories and Related Empirical Phenomena. In: Edwards, W. (eds) Utility Theories: Measurements and Applications. Studies in Risk and Uncertainty, vol 3. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2952-7_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2952-7_1

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-7923-9227-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-011-2952-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation