Alternatives to Expected Utility: Foundations

  • Robert Sugden
Chapter

Abstract

In the last twenty-five years, an enormous amount of work has been done to develop new decision theories which can accommodate patterns of choice that contravene expected utility theory. This chapter surveys some of the main approaches that have been taken by these alternatives to expected utility theory.

Keywords

Income Stein Rium Defend Editing 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allais, M. (1953). Le comportement de l’homme rationnel devant le risque: Critique des postulats et axiomes de l’école américaine. Econometrica, 21:503–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allais, M. (1979). The Foundations of a Positive Theory of Choice Involving Risk and a Criticism of the Postulates and Axioms of the American School. In Allais, M. and Hagen, O., editors, Expected Utility Hypotheses and the Allais Paradox, pages 27–145. Reidel, Dordrecht. Paper first published in French in 1953.Google Scholar
  3. Anscombe, F. J. and Aumann, R. (1963). A Definition of Subjective Probability. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 34:199–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker, G. M., DeGroot, M. H., and Marschak, J. (1963). Stochastic Models of Choice behavior. Behavioral Science, 8:41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Becker, J. L. and Sarin, R. K. (1987). Lottery Dependent Utilty. Management Science, 33:1367–1382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bell, D. (1982). Regret in Decision Making under Uncertainty. Operations Research, 30:961–981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bell, D. (1985). Disappointment in Decision Making under Uncertainty. Operations Research, 33:1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Binmore, K. (1994). Playing Fair. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  9. Camerer, C. (1995). Individual Decision Making. In Kagel, J. and Roth, A. E., editors, Handbook of Experimental Economics, pages 587–703. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  10. Camerer, C. and Weber, M. (1992). Recent Developments in Modeling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5:325–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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, 51:1065–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chew, S. H. (1985). An Axiomatization of the Rank Dependent Quasilinear Mean Generalizing the Gini Mean and the Quasilinear Mean. Unpublished manuscript, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.Google Scholar
  13. Chew, S. H. (1989). Axiomatic Utility Theories with the Betweenness Property. Annals of Operations Research, 19:273–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chew, S. H., Epstein, L. G., and Segal, U. (1991). Mixture Symmetry and Quadratic Utility. Econometrica, 59:139–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chew, S. H., Kami, E., and Safra, Z. (1987). Risk Aversion in the Theory of Expected Utility with Rank Dependent Probabilities. Journal of Economic Theory, 42:370–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chew, S. H. and MacCrimmon, K. (1979). Alpha-Nu Choice Theory: A Generalization of Expected Utility Theory. Working Paper 669, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
  17. Choquet, G. (1953–54). Theory of Capacities. Annales de l’Institut Fourier, 5:131–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cubitt, R. P. (1996). Rational Dynamic Choice and Expected Utility Theory. Oxford Economic Papers, 48:1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cubitt, R. P., Starmer, C, and Sugden, R. (1998). Dynamic Choice and the Common Ratio Effect: An Experimental Investigation. Economic Journal, 108:1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. de Finetti, B. (1937). La prévision: Ses lois logiques, ses sources subjective. Annals de l’Institut Henri Poincare, 7:1–68.Google Scholar
  21. Dekel, E. (1986). An Axiomatic Characterization of Preferences Under Uncertainty: Weakening the Independence Axiom. Journal of Economic Theory, 40:304–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75:643–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fishburn, P. C. (1978). On Handa’s “New Theory of Cardinal Utility” and the Maximization of Expected return. Journal of Political Economy, 86:321–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fishburn, P. C. (1982). Nontransitive Measurable Utility. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 26:31–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fishburn, P. C. (1983). Transitive Measurable Utility. Journal of Economic Theory, 31:293–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fishburn, P. C. (1984). Dominance in SSB Utility Theory. Journal of Economic Theory, 34:130–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fishburn, P. C. (1989). Non-Transitive Measurable Utility for Decision Under Uncertainty. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 18:187–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Friedman, M. and Savage, L. J. (1948). The Utility Analysis of Choices Involving Risk. Journal of Political Economy, 56:279–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gauthier, D. (1986). Morals by Agreement. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  30. Gilboa, I. and Schmeidler, D. (1995). Case-Based Decision Theory. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110:605–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Grant, S. (1995). Subjective Probability without Monotonicity: Or How Machina’s Mom May Also Be Probabilistically Sophisticated. Econometrica, 63:159–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Grant, S., Kajii, A., and Polak, B. (1992). Many Good Choice Axioms: When Can Many-Good Lotteries Be Treated as Money Lotteries? Journal of Economic Theory, 56:313–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Green, J. R. and Jullien, B. (1988). Ordinal Independence in Nonlinear Utility Theory. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1:355–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gul, F. (1991). A Theory of Disappointment Aversion. Econometrica, 59:667–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hagen, O. (1979). Towards a Positive Theory of Preferences under Risk. In Allais, M. and Hagen, O., editors, Expected Utility Hypotheses and the Allais Paradox, pages 271–302. Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  36. Hammond, P. J. (1988). Consequentialist Foundations for Expected Utility. Theory and Decision, 25:25–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Handa, J. (1977). Risk, Probabilities and a New Theory of Cardinal Utility. Journal of Political Economy, 85:97–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Harless, D. W. (1992). Actions Versus Prospects: The Effects of Problem Representation on Regret. American Economic Review, 82:634–649.Google Scholar
  39. Harless, D. W. and Camerer, C. (1994). The Predictive Utility of Generalized Expected Utility Theories. Econometrica, 62:1251–1289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Herstein, I. N. and Milnor, J. (1953). An Axiomatic Approach to Measurable Utility. Econometrica, 21:291–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hey, J. D. and Orme, C. (1994). Investigating Generalizations of Expected Utility Theory Using Experimental Data. Econometrica, 62:1291–1326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hirshleifer, J. and Riley, J. G. (1992). The Analytics of Uncertainty and Information. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk. Econometrica, 47:263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Karni, E. and Safra, Z. (1989). Ascending Bid Auctions with Behaviorally Consistent Bidders. Annals of Operations Research, 19:435–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Karni, E. and Safra, Z. (1990). Behaviorally Consistent Optimal Stopping Rules. Journal of Economic Theory, 51:391–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kavka, G. S. (1983). The Toxin Puzzle. Analysis, 43:33–36.Google Scholar
  47. Keynes, J. M. (1921). A Treatise on Probability. Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
  48. Knetsch, J. L. (1989). The Endowment Effect and Evidence of Nonreversible Indifference Curves. American Economic Review, 79:1277–1284.Google Scholar
  49. Knetsch, J. L. and Sinden, J. A. (1984). Willingness to Pay and Compensation Demanded: Experimental Evidence of an Unexpected Disparity in Measures of value. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 99:507–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Loewenstein, G. and Adler, D. (1995). A Bias in the Prediction of Tastes. Economic Journal, 105:929–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Loonies, G., Starmer, C., and Sugden, R. (1991). Observing Violations of Transitivity by Experimental Methods. Econometrica, 59:425–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Loonies, G., Starmer, C., and Sugden, R. (1992). Are Preferences Monotonic? Testing Some Predictions of Regret Theory. Economica, 59:17–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Loomes, G. and Sugden, R. (1982). Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice Under Uncertainty. Economic Journal, 92:805–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Loomes, G. and Sugden, R. (1986). Disappointment and Dynamic Consistency in Choice Under Uncertainty. Review of Economic Studies, 53:271–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Loomes, G. and Sugden, R. (1987). Some Implications of a More General Form of Regret Theory. Journal of Economic Theory, 41:270–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Loomes, G. and Sugden, R. (1995). Incorporating a Stochastic Element Into Decision Theories. European Economic Review, 39:641–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Luce, R. D. and Fishburn, P. C. (1991). Rank-and Sign-Dependent Linear Utility Models for Finite First-Order Gambles. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 4:29–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Machina, M. J. (1982). “Expected Utility” Analysis Without the Independence Axiom. Econometrica, 50:277–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Machina, M. J. (1983). The Economic Theory of Individual Behavior Toward Risk: Theory, Evidence and New Directions. Center for Research on Organizational Efficiency, Stanford University. Technical Report No. 433.Google Scholar
  60. Machina, M. J. (1989). Dynamic Consistency and Non-Expected Utility Models of Choice Under Uncertainty. Journal of Economic Literature, 27:1622–1688.Google Scholar
  61. Machina, M. J. (1991). Dynamic Consistency and Non-Expected Utility. In Bacharach, M. and Hurley, S., editors, Foundations of Decision Theory, pages 39–91. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  62. Machina, M. J. and Schmeidler, D. (1992). A More Robust Definition of Subjective Probability. Econometrica, 60:745–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Malinvaud, E. (1952). Note on von Neumann-Morgenstern’s Strong Independence Axiom. Econometrica, 20:679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Markowitz, H. M. (1952). The Utility of Wealth. Journal of Political Economy, 60:151–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Markowitz, H. M. (1959). Portfolio Selection. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  66. Marschak, J. (1950). Rational Behavior, Uncertain Prospects, and Measurable Utility. Econometrica, 18:111–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. McClennen, E. F. (1990). Rationality and Dynamic Choice: Foundational Explorations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., and Johnson, E. J. (1992). Behavioral Decision Research: A Constructive Processing Perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 43:87–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Prelec, D. (1998). The Probability Weighting function. Econometrica, 66:497–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Quiggin, J. (1982). A Theory of Anticipated Utility. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3:323–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Quiggin, J. (1994). Regret Theory with General Choice Sets. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 8:153–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Ramsey, F. P. (1931). Truth and Probability. In Braithwaite, R.B., editor, The Foundations of Mathematics and Other Logical Essays, pages 156–198. Harcourt and Brace, New York.Google Scholar
  73. Rothschild, M. and Stiglitz, J. E. (1970). Increasing Risk: A Definition. Journal of Economic Theory, 2:225–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Rubinstein, A. (1988). Similarity and Decision-Making Under Risk. (Is There a Utility Theory Resolution to the Allais Paradox?). Journal of Economic Theory, 46:145–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Samuelson, P. A. (1952). Probability, Utility, and the Independence Axiom. Econometrica, 20:670–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Sarin, R. K. and Wakker, P. (1992). A Simple Axiomatization of Nonadditive Expected Utility. Econometrica, 60:1255–1272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sarin, R. K. and Weber, M. (1993). Risk-Value Models. European Journal of Operational Research, 70:135–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Savage, L. J. (1954). The Foundations of Statistics. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  79. Schmeidler, D. (1989). Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity. Econometrica, 57:571–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Segal, U. (1987). The Ellsberg Paradox and Risk Aversion: An Anticipated Utility Approach. International Economic Review, 28:175–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Segal, U. (1988). Does the Preference Reversal Phenomenon Necessarily Contradict the Independence Axiom? American Economic Review, 78:233–236.Google Scholar
  82. Segal, U. (1989). Axiomatic Representation of Expected Utility with Rank-Dependent Probabilities. Annals of Operations Research, 19:359–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Segal, U. and Spivak, A. (1990). First Order Versus Second Order Risk Aversion. Journal of Economic Theory, 51:111–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of Man. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  85. Starmer, C. (1992). Testing New Theories of Choice Under Uncertainty Using the Common Consequence Effect. Review of Economic Studies, 59:813–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Starmer, C. (1999). Cycling with Rules of Thumb: An Experimental Test for a New Form of Non-Transitive Behaviour. Theory and Decision, 46:141–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Starmer, C. and Sugden, R. (1989). Violations of the Independence Axiom in Common Ratio Problems: An Experimental Test of Some Competing Hypotheses. Annals of Operations Research, 19:79–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Starmer, C. and Sugden, R. (1993). Testing For Juxtaposition and Event-Splitting Effects. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 6:235–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Sugden, R. (1986). New Developments in the Theory of Choice Under Uncertainty. Bulletin of Economic Research, 38:1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Sugden, R. (1991). Rational Choice: A Survey of Contributions From Economics and Philosophy. Economic Journal, 101:751–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Sugden, R. (1993). An Axiomatic Foundation For Regret Theory. Journal of Economic Theory, 60:159–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Tversky, A. (1969). Intransitivity of Preferences. Psychological Review, 76:31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Tversky, A. (1977). Features of Similarity. Psychological Review, 84:327–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions. Journal of Business, 59:251–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference Dependent Model. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106:1039–1061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5:297–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Tversky, A. and Wakker, P. (1995). Risk Attitudes and Decision Weights. Econometrica, 63:1255–1280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Viscusi, W. K. (1989). Prospective Reference Theory: Toward an Explanation of the Paradoxes. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2:235–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. von Neumann, J. and Morgenstern, O. (1947). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2nd edition. 3rd edition published in 1953.Google Scholar
  100. Wakker, P. (1990). Under Stochastic Dominance Choquet-Expected Utility and Anticipated Utility are Identical. Theory and Decision, 29:119–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Wakker, P. and Tversky, A. (1993). An Axiomatization of Cumulative Prospect Theory. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 7:147–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Yaari, M. E. (1987). The Dual Theory of Choice Under Risk. Econometrica, 55:95–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Sugden
    • 1
  1. 1.University of East AngliaNorwichUK

Personalised recommendations