Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Non-Expected Utility and Stochastic Dominance

  • Chapter
Stochastic Dominance

Part of the book series: Studies in Risk and Uncertainty ((SIRU,volume 12))

  • 1542 Accesses

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 209.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 269.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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.

References

  1. Machina, Mark A., “‘Expected Utility’ Analysis Without Independent Axiom,” Econometrica, 50, 1982, pp. 270–323, and Machina, M.A., “Generalized Expected Utility Analysis and the Nature of Observed Violations of the Independence Axiom, in Stigum, B., and Wenstøph, F. (eds.) Foundation of Utility and Risk with Applications, Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Fishburn, P.C., “Nontransitive Measurable Utility,” Journal of Math. Psychology, 26, 1982, pp. 31–67.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Mosteller, F., and Nogee, P., “An Experimental Measurement of Utility,” Journal of Political Economy, 59, October 1951, pp. 371–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Edwards, W., “Probability Preferences in Gambling,” American Journal of Psychology, 66, 1953, pp. 349–364 and Edwards W., “Probability Preferences Among Bets with Differing Expected Values,” American Journal of Psychology, 67, 1954, pp. 56–67.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. See Footnote 2.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Kahaneman, D.K., and Tversky, A., “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,” Econometrica, 47, 1979, pp. 263–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. See Levy, H. and M. Levy, “Experimental Test of the Prospect Theory Value Function: A Stochastic Dominance Approach,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 2002, pp. 1058–1081.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Tversky, A. and Kahaneman, D.K., “Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 1992, pp. 297–323.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Wu, G., and Gonzales, R., “Curvature of the Probability Weighting Function,” Management Science, 42,12, 1996, pp. 1676–1690.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Abdellaoui, M., “Parameter Free Elicitation of Utility and Probability Weighting Functions,” Management Science, 2000, 46, pp. 1497–1512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Prelec, D. “The Probability Weighting Function,” Econometrica, 66, 1998, pp. 497–527.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Viscusi, W.K., “Prospective Reference Theory: Toward an Explanation of Paradoxes,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2, 1989, 235–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Yaari, M., “The Dual Theory of Choice Under Risk,” Econometrica, 55, 1987, pp. 95–115.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Teversky, A. and D. Kahaneman, “Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 1992, pp. 297–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Quiggin, J., Generalized Expected Utility Theory, The Rank Dependent Model, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 1993.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Levy & Wiener show that for SSD or TSD not to be violated by the transformation, the requirement T″(·) ≤ 0 and T″’(·) ≥ 0, respectively should be added. See, Levy, H., and Wiener, Z., “Stochastic Dominance and Prospect Dominance with Subjective Weighting Functions,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 16, 1998, pp. 147–163.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Birnbaum, M.H., and Navarrete, J.B., “Testing Descriptive Utility Theories: Variations of Stochastic Dominance and Cumulative Independence,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 17, 1998, pp 49–78.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Birnbaum, M.H., “New Paradoxes of Risky Decision-Making, 2004, California State University, Fullerton, Working Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  19. This table reports only one experiment’s results of a more extensive study. For more details, see Levy, H., “First degree Stochastic Dominance Violations: Decision Weights and Bounded Rationality,” 2005, Working Paper, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Levy, H., and Wiener, Z., “Prospect Theory and Utility Theory: Temporary and Permanent Attitude Toward Risk,” Working paper, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Thaler, R.H., and E.J. Johnson, “Gambling with the House Money and Trying to Break Even: The Effects of Prior Outcomes on Risky Choices,” Management Science, 36, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Friedman, M., and Savage, L.J., “The Utility Analysis of Choices Involving Risk,” Journal of Political Economy, August 1948.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Markowitz, H. M., “Portfolio Selection,” Journal of Finance, 7, 1952, pp. 77–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

(2006). Non-Expected Utility and Stochastic Dominance. In: Stochastic Dominance. Studies in Risk and Uncertainty, vol 12. Springer, Boston, MA . https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-29311-6_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation