Abstract
Luce and Fishburn (1991) derived a general rank-dependent utility model using an operation ⊕ of joint receipt. Their argument rested on an empirically supported property (now) calledsegregation and on the assumption that utility is additive over ⊕. This note generalizes that conclusion to the case where utility need not be additive over ⊕, but rather is of a more general form, which they derived but did not use in their article. Tversky and Kahneman (1992), conjecturing that the joint receipt of two sums of money is simply their sum, criticized that original model because ⊕=+ together with additive utility implies the unacceptable conclusion that the utility of money is proportional to money. In the present generalized theory, if ⊕=+, utility is a negative exponential function of money rather than proportional. Similar results hold for losses. The case of mixed gains and losses is less well understood.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Birnbaum, M. H. (1992). “Violations of Monotonicity and Contextual Effects in Choice-based Certainty Equivalents,”Psychological Science 3, 310–314.
Cho, Y., and R. D. Luce, (in press). “Tests of Hypotheses about Certainty Equivalents and Joint Receipt of Gambles.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.
Cho, Y., R. D. Luce and D. von Winterfeldt. (1994). “Tests of Assumptions about the Joint Receipt of Gambles in Rank-and Sign-Dependent Utility Theory,”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 20, 931–943.
Fishburn, P. C., and R. D. Luce. (1995). “Joint Receipt and Thaler's Hedonic Editing Rule,”Mathematical Social Sciences 29, 33–76.
Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky. (1979). “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,”Econometrica 47, 263–291.
Linville, P. W., and G. W. Fischer. (1991). “Preferences for Separating or Combining Events,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60, 5–23.
Luce, R. D. (1991). “Rank- and Sign-Dependent Linear Utility Models for Binary Gambles,”Journal of Economic Theory 53, 75–100.
Luce, R. D. (1992). “Singular Points in Generalized Concatenation Structures that Otherwise Are Homoge-neous,”Mathematical Social Sciences 24, 79–103.
Luce, R. D. (1995). “Joint Receipt and Certainty Equivalents of Gambles,”Journal of Mathematical Psychology 39, 73–81.
Luce, R. D., and P. C. Fishburn. (1991). “Rank-and Sign-Dependent Linear Utility Models for Finite FirstOrder Gambles,”Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 4, 29–59.
Luce, R. D., and L. Narens. (1985). “Classification of Concatenation Measurement Structures According to Scale Type,”Journal of Mathematical Psychology 29, 1–72.
Mellers, B., R. Weiss, and M. H. Birnbaum. (1992). “Violation of Dominance in Pricing Judgments,“Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5, 73–90.
Quiggin, J. (1993).Generalized Expected Utility Theory: The Rank-Dependent Model. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Slovic, P., and S. Lichtenstein. (1968). “Importance of Variance Preferences in Gambling Decisions,”Journal of Experimental Psychology 78, 646–654.
Thaler, R. H. (1985). “Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice,”Marketing Science 4, 199–214.
Thaler, R. H., and E. Johnson. (1990). “Gambling with the House Money or Trying to Break Even: The Effects of Prior Outcomes on Risky Choice,”Management Science 36, 643–660.
Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. (1992). “Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty,”Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5, 204–217.
von Winterfeldt, D., N.-K. Chung, R. D. Luce, and Y. Cho. (submitted). “Tests of Consequence Monotonicity in Decision Making under Uncertainty,”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition.
Wakker, P. P., and A. Tversky. (1993). “An Axiomatization of Cumulative Prospect Theory,”Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 7, 147–176.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Luce, R.D., Fishburn, P.C. A note on deriving rank-dependent utility using additive joint receipts. J Risk Uncertainty 11, 5–16 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01132728
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01132728