# Ranked Additive Utility Representations of Gambles: Old and New Axiomatizations

- 100 Downloads
- 17 Citations

## Abstract

A number of classical as well as quite new utility representations for gains are explored with the aim of understanding the behavioral conditions that are necessary and sufficient for various subfamilies of successively stronger representations to hold. Among the utility representations are: ranked additive, weighted, rank-dependent (which includes cumulative prospect theory as a special case), gains decomposition, subjective expected, and independent increments*, where * denotes something new in this article. Among the key behavioral conditions are: idempotence, general event commutativity*, coalescing, gains decomposition, and component summing*. The structure of relations is sufficiently simple that certain key experiments are able to exclude entire classes of representations. For example, the class of rank-dependent utility models is very likely excluded because of empirical results about the failure of coalescing. Figures 1–3 summarize some of the primary results.

## Keywords

coalescing component summing event commutativity gains decomposition ranked additive utility ranked weighted utility utility representations## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References

- Aczél, J. (1966).
*Lectures on Functional Equations and their Applications.*New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar - Aczél, J. (1987).
*A Short Course on Functional Equations Based on Applications to the Behavioral and Social Sciences*Dordrecht-Boston-Lancaster-Tokyo: Reidel-Kluwer.Google Scholar - Aczél, J. and M. Kuczma. (1991). “Generalizations of a ‘Folk-Theorem’ on Simple Functional Equations in a Single Variable,”
*Results in Mathematics*19, 5–21.Google Scholar - Aczél, J., R.D. Luce, and A.A.J. Marley. (2003). “A Functional Equation Arising from Simultaneous Utility Representations,”
*Results Math.*43, 193–197.Google Scholar - Anscombe, F.J. and R.J. Aumann. (1963). “A Definition of Subjective Probability,”
*Annals Math. Stat.*34, 199–205.Google Scholar - Birnbaum, M.H. (1997). “Violations of Monotonicity in Judgment and Decision Making.” In A.A.J. Marley (ed.).
*Choice, Decision, and Measurement: Essays in Honor of R. Duncan Luce*. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 73–100.Google Scholar - Birnbaum, M.H. (1999). “Paradoxes of Allais, Stochastic Dominance, and Decision Weights.” In J. Shanteau, B. A. Mellers, and D.A. Schum (eds.),
*Decision Science and Technology: Reflections on the Contributions of Ward Edwards*. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 27–52.Google Scholar - Birnbaum, M.H. (2000). “Decision Making in the Lab and on the Web.” In M. H. Birnbaum (ed.).
*Psychological Experiments on the Internet*. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 3–34.Google Scholar - Birnbaum, M.H. (2004). “Tests of Rank-Dependent Utility and Cumulative Prospect Theory in Gambles Represented by Natural Frequencies: Effects of Format, Event Framing, and Branch Splitting,”
*Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes*95, 40–65.Google Scholar - Birnbaum, M.H. and D. Beeghley. (1997). “Violations of Branch Independence in Judgments of the Value of Gambles,”
*Psychological Science*8, 87–94.Google Scholar - Birnbaum, M.H. and A. Chavez. (1997). “Tests of Theories of Decision Making: Violations of Branch Independence and Distribution Independence,”
*Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes*71, 161–194.Google Scholar - Birnbaum, M.H., G. Coffey, B.A. Mellers, and R. Weiss. (1992). “Utility Measurement: Configural-Weight Theory and the Judge’s Point of View,”
*Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance*18, 331–346.Google Scholar - Birnbaum, M.H., and J. Navarrete. (1998). “Testing Descriptive Utility Theories: Violations of Stochastic Dominance and Cumulative Independence,”
*Journal of Risk and Uncertainty*17, 49–78.Google Scholar - Casadesus-Masanell, R., P. Klibanoff, and E. Ozdenoren. (2000). “Maxmin Expected Utility over Savage Acts with a Set of Priors,”
*J. Econ. Theory*92, 35–65.Google Scholar - Chew, S.H. (1983). “A Generalization of the Quasilinear Mean and Applications to the Measurement of Income Inequality and Decision Theory Resolving the Allais Paradox,”
*Econometrica*51, 1065–1092.Google Scholar - Cho, Y.-H., R.D. Luce, and L. Truong. (2002). “Duplex Decomposition and General Segregation of Lotteries of a Gain and a Loss: An Empirical Evaluation,”
*Org. Beh. Hum. Dec. Making*89, 1176–1193.Google Scholar - Choquet, G. (1953). “Theory of Capacities,”
*Annales Inst. Fourier*5, 131–295.Google Scholar - Ellsberg, D. (1961). “Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms,”
*Q. J. Econ*. 75, 643–669.Google Scholar - Fishburn, P.C. (1988).
*Nonlinear Preference and Utility Theory*. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar - Ghirardato, P. and M. Marinacci. (2002). “Ambiguity Made Precise: A Comparative Foundation,”
*J. Econ. Theory*102, 251–289.Google Scholar - Ghirardato, P., F. Maccheroni, M. Marinacci, and M. Siniscalchi. (2003). “A Subjective Spin on Roulette Wheels,”
*Econometrica*71, 1897–1908.Google Scholar - Gilboa, I., and D. Schmeidler. (1989). “Maxmin Expected Utility with a Non-Unique Prior,”
*J. Math. Econ.*18, 141–153.Google Scholar - Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky. (1979). “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Making Under Risk,”
*Econometrica*47, 263–291.Google Scholar - Karmarkar, U.S. (1978). “Subjectively Weighted Utility: A Descriptive Extension of the Expected Utility Model,”
*Org. Beh. Human Performance*21, 61–72.Google Scholar - Köbberling, V. and P.P. Wakker. (2003). “Preference Foundations for Nonexpected Utility: A Generalized and Simplified Technique,”
*Math. Op. Res.*28, 395–423.Google Scholar - Krantz, D. H., R.D. Luce, P. Suppes, and A. Tversky. (1971).
*Foundations of Measurement*, Vol. I. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar - Liu, L. (1995).
*A Theory of Coarse Utility and its Application to Portfolio Analysis*. University of Kansas, Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar - Luce, R.D. (1959).
*Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis*. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar - Luce, R.D. (1990). “Rational versus Plausible Accounting Equivalences in Preference Judgments,”
*Psychol. Sci.*1, 225–234.Google Scholar - Luce, R.D. (1998). “Coalescing, Event Commutativity, and Theories of Utility,”
*J. Risk Uncert.*16, 87–114. Errata: 18, 1999, 99.Google Scholar - Luce, R.D. (2000).
*Utility of Gains and Losses: Measurement-Theoretical and Experimental Approaches*. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, Errata: see Luce’s web page at http://www.socsci.uci.eduGoogle Scholar - Luce, R.D. (2002). “A Psychophysical Theory of Intensity Proportions, Joint Presentations, and Matches,”
*Psych. Rev.*109, 520–532.Google Scholar - Luce, R.D. (2003). “Increasing Increment Generalizations of Rank-Dependent Theories,”
*Theory Dec.*55, 87–146.Google Scholar - Luce, R.D. (2004). “Symmetric and Asymmetric Matching of Joint Presentations,”
*Psych. Rev.*111, 446–454.Google Scholar - Luce, R.D. and A.A.J. Marley. (2000). “Elements of Chance,”
*Theory Dec.*49, 97–126.Google Scholar - Maksa, G. (1999). “Solution of Generalized Bisymmetry Type Equations Without Surjectivity Assumptions,”
*Aequationes Math.*57, 50–74.Google Scholar - Marley, A.A.J. and R.D. Luce. (2001). “Ranked-Weighted Utility and Qualitative Convolution,”
*J. Risk Uncert.*23, 135–163.Google Scholar - Marley, A.A.J. and R.D. Luce. (2004). “Independence Properties vis-à-vis Several Utility Representations,” submitted.Google Scholar
- Meginniss, J.R. (1976). “A New Class of Symmetric Utility Rules for Gambles, Subjective Marginal Probability Functions, and a Generalized Bayes’ Rule,”
*Proceedings American Statistical Association, Business and Economic Statistics Sec.*471–476.Google Scholar - Ng, C.T. (2003). “Monotonic Solutions of Functional Equation Arising from Simultaneous Utility Representations,”
*Results in Mathematics*44, 340–361.Google Scholar - Quiggin, J. (1982). “ A Theory of Anticipated Utility,”
*J. Econ. Beh. Org.*3, 323–343.Google Scholar - Quiggin, J. (1993).
*Generalized Expected Utility Theory: The Rank-Dependent Model.*Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar - Savage, L.J. (1954).
*The Foundations of Statistics.*New York: Wiley.Google Scholar - Schmeidler, D. (1989). “Subjective Probability and Expected Utility Without Additivity,”
*Econometrica*57, 571–587.Google Scholar - Slovic, P., M. Finucane, E. Peters, and D.G. MacGregor. (2002). “The Affect Heuristic.” In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, and D. Kahneman (eds.),
*Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment.*New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 397–420.Google Scholar - Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman. (1992). “Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty,”
*J. Risk Uncert*. 5, 297–323.Google Scholar - von Neumann, J. and O.Morgenstern. (1947).
*Theory of Games and Economic Behavior*, 2nd edition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar - Wakker, P. P. (1990). “Under Stochastic Dominance Choquet-Expected Utility and Anticipated Utility are Identical,”
*Theory and Decision*119–132.Google Scholar - Wakker, P.P. (1991). “Additive Representations on Rank-Ordered Sets. I. The Algebraic Approach,”
*J. Math. Psych.*35, 501–531.Google Scholar - Wang, T. (2003). “Conditional Preferences and Updating,”
*J. Econ. Theory*108, 286–321.Google Scholar