Non-Expected Utility: What do the Anomalies Mean for Risk in Agriculture?

  • David E. Buschena
Part of the Natural Resource Management and Policy book series (NRMP, volume 23)


After more than a quarter century of analysis into its predictive value, the validity of the expected utility model (EU) is seriously called into question. These questions are particularly critical for agricultural economists since we have long relied on EU to assess behavior under the pervasive environment of risk in agricultural and natural resource issues. In this chapter, I will review some of the primary violations of EU, assess their implications, and consider various responses put forward in light of them. Questions addressed include:
  • What is the nature of behavior violating EU as commonly applied?

  • What do these anomalies tell us about modeling behavior under risk and what testable implications can be drawn from models incorporating them?

  • Can we still use EU for some risky choices in light of these anomalies; i.e., how robust are the anomalies to (1) the design of the risky questions, (2) real payoffs, and (3) experimental vs. non-experimental risky questions?


Expect Utility Theory Risky Choice Risky Decision Final Wealth Probability Weighting Function 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allais, M. 1953. “Le Comportement de l’Homme Rationnel Devant le Risque: Critique des Postulats et Axiomes de l’Ecole Américaine.” Econometrica 21: 503–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allais, M. 1979. “The So-Called Allais Paradox and Rational Decisions Under Uncertainty.” In M. Allais and O. Hagen, eds., Expected Utility Hypotheses and the Allais Paradox. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arrow, K. 1970. Essays in the Theory of Risk Bearing. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  4. Atwood, J., and D.E. Buschena. 2000. “Evaluating the Magnitudes of Financial Transactions Costs on Risk Behavior.” Working Paper, Department of Agricultural Economics and Economics, Montana State University.Google Scholar
  5. Atwood, J.A., M.J. Watts, and A. Baquet. 1996. “An Examination of the Effects of Price Supports and Federal Crop Insurance Upon the Economic Growth, Capital Structure, and Financial Survival of Wheat Growers in the Northern High Plains.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78: 212–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bar-Shira, Z. 1992. “Nonparametric Tests of The Expected Utility Hypothesis.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 74: 523–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bell, D.E. 1982. “Regret in Decision Making Under Uncertainty.” Operations Research 30: 961–981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Benjamin, D.K., and W.R. Dougan. 1997. “Individual’s Estimates of the Risk of Death: Part I - A Reassessment of the Previous Evidence.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 15: 115134.Google Scholar
  9. Benjamin, D., W. Dougan, and D.E. Buschena. 2001. “Individuals’ Estimates of the Risks of Death: Part II — New Evidence.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 22: 35–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buschena, D.E., and D. Zilberman. 1995. “Performance of the Similarity Hypothesis Relative to Existing Models of Risky Choice.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 11: 233–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Buschena, D.E., and D. Zilberman. 1999a. Testing the Effects of Similarity and Real Payoffs on Choice. In M. Machina and B. Munier, eds., Beliefs, Interactions, and Preferences in Decision Making. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  12. Buschena, D.E., and D. Zilberman. 1999b. “Testing the Effects of Similarity on Risky Choice: Implications for Violations of Expected Utility.” Theory and Decision 46: 253–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Buschena, D.E., and D. Zilberman. 2000. “Generalized Expected Utility, Heteroscedastic Error, and Path Dependence in Risky Choice.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 20: 67–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Buschena, D.E., and D. Zilberman. 2001. “Predictive Value of Incentives, Decision Difficulty, and Expected Utility Theory for Risky Choices.” Working Paper, Department of Agricultural Economics and Economics. Montana State University.Google Scholar
  15. Camerer, C.F., and R. Hogarth. 1999. “The Effect of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 19: 7–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carbonne, E., and J.D. Hey. 2000. “Which Error Story is Best?” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 20: 161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cherry, T.L., T.D. Crocker, and J.F. Shogren. 1999. “Rationality Spillovers.” Working Paper, Department of Economics and Finance, University of Central Florida.Google Scholar
  18. Collins, A., W.N. Musser, and R. Mason. 1991. Prospect Theory and Risk Preferences ofGoogle Scholar
  19. Oregon Seed Producers. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73: 429–435.Google Scholar
  20. Edwards, W. 1954. “The Theory of Decision Making.” Psychological Bulletin 51: 380–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ellsberg, D. 1961. “Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 75: 643–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Feder, G., R.E. Just, and A. Schmitz. 1980. “Futures Markets and the Theory of the Firm Under Price Uncertainty.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 94: 317–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fishbum, P.C. 1981. “An Axiomatic Characterization of Skew-Symmetric Bilinear Functionals, With Applications to Utility Theory.” Economics Letters 8: 311–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fishbum, P.C. 1988. Nonlinear Preference and Utility Theory. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Friedman, M., and L.J. Savage. 1948. “The Utility Analysis of Choices Involving Risk.” Journal of Political Economy 56: 279–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harless, D., and C. Camerer. 1994. “The Predictive Utility of Generalized Expected Utility Theory.” Econometrica 62: 1251–1290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harless, D.W., and S.P. Peterson. 1998. “Investor Behavior and the Persistence of Poorly-Performing Mutual Funds.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 37: 257276.Google Scholar
  28. Harrison, G.W. 1994. “Expected Utility Theory and the Experimentalists.” Empirical Economics 19: 223–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Heath, C., and A. Tversky. 1991. “Preference and Belief: Ambiguity and Competence in Choice Under Uncertainty.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 4: 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hershey, J.C., and P. J.H. Schoemaker. “Risk Taking and Problem Context in the Domain of Losses: An Expected Utility Analysis.” Journal of Risk and Insurance 47: 111–132.Google Scholar
  31. Hey, J.D. 1995. “Experimental Investigations of Errors in Decision Making Under Risk.” European Economic Review 39: 633–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hey, J.D., and C. Orme. 1994. “Investigating Generalizations of Expected Utility Theory Using Experimental Data.” Econometrica 62: 1291–1326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jensen, N. 1967. “An Introduction to Bernoullian Utility Theory: Utility Functions.” Swedish Journal of Economics 69: 163–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jullien, B., and B. Salanié. 2000. “Estimating Preferences Under Risk: The Case of Racetrack Bettors.” Journal of Political Economy 108: 503–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kachelmeter, S.J., and M. Shehata. 1992. “Examining Risk Preferences Under High Monetary Incentives: Experimental Evidence From the Peoples’ Republic of China.” American Economic Review 82: 1 120–1 141.Google Scholar
  36. Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky. 1979. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk.” Econometrica 47: 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Katoka, S. 1963. “A Stochastic Programming Model.” Econometrica 31: 181–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Leland, J.W. 1994. “Generalized Similarity Judgments: An Alternative Explanation for Choice Anomalies.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 9: 151–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lichtenstein, S., P. Slovic, B. Fischoff, M. Lyman, and B. Combs. 1978. “Judged Frequency of Lethal Events.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory 4: 551–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Loomes, G., and R. Sudgen. 1982. “Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice Under Uncertainty.” Economic Journal 92: 805–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Machina, Mark J. 1982. “`Expected Utility’ Analysis Without the Independence Axiom.” Econometrica 50: 277–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Machina, Mark J. 1989. “Comparative Statics and Non-Expected Utility Preferences.” Journal of Economic Theory 47: 393–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Machina, Mark J. 1990. “Choice Under Uncertainty: Problems Solved and Unsolved.” In R.B. Hammon and R. Coppock, eds., Valuing Health Risk, Costs and Benefits for Environmental Decisionmaking. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  44. Mahul, O. 2000. “The Output Decision of a Risk-Neutral Producer under Risk of Liquidation.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82: 49–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Meyer, J. 2001. “Expected Utility as a Paradigm for Decision Making in Agriculture.” In R.E. Just and R.D. Pope, eds., A Comprehensive Assessment of the Role of Risk in U.S. Agriculture. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  46. Newbery, D.M.G., and J.E. Stiglitz. 1981. The Theory of Commodity Price Stabilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Pious, S. 1993. The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making. Philadelphia: Temple University Press: Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  48. Pratt, J.W. 1964. “Risk Aversion in the Small and in the Large.” Econometrica 32: 122–136. Preston, M.G., and P. Baratta. 1948. “An Experimental Study of the Auction Value of an Uncertain Outcome.” American Journal of Psychology 61: 183–193.Google Scholar
  49. Quiggin, J. 1982. “A Theory of Anticipated Utility.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 3: 323–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Quiggin, J. 1991. “Comparative Statics for Rank-Dependent Expected Utility Theory.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 4: 339–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Quiggin, J., and R.G. Chambers. 1998. “Risk Premiums and Benefit Measures for Generalized-Expected Utility Theories.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 17: 121–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Roberts, M. 1994. “The Sensitivity of Expected Utility Violations to the Experimental Design: How Context Affects Risky Choice.” Master’s thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics and Economics, Montana State University.Google Scholar
  53. Robison, L.J., and P.J. Barry. 1987. The Competitive Firm’s Response to Risk. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  54. Roy, A.D. 1952. “Safety First and the Holding of Assets.” Econometrica 20: 431–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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
  56. Sandmo, A. 1971. “On the Theory of the Competitive Firm Under Price Uncertainty.” American Economic Review 61: 65–73.Google Scholar
  57. Smith, V.K. 1992. “Environmental Risk Perception and Valuation: Conventional Versus Prospective Reference Theory.” In D.W. Bromley and K. Segerson, eds., The Social Response to Environmental Risk: Policy Formulation in an Age of Uncertainty. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  58. Stigler, J.E., and G.S. Becker. 1977. “De Gustibus Non est Disputandum.” American Economic Review 67: 76–90.Google Scholar
  59. Telser, L.G. 1955–56. “Safety First and Hedging.” Review of Economic Studies 23: l-16.Google Scholar
  60. Tversky, A. 1969. “Intransitivity of Preferences.” Psychological Review 76: 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tversky, A. 1977. “Features of Similarity.” Psychological Review 84: 327–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1992. “Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5: 297–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Viscusi, W.K. 1989. “Prospective Reference Theory: Toward an Explanation of the Paradoxes.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2: 235–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. von Neumann, J., and O. Morgenstern. 1953. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior ( 3rd ed. ). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • David E. Buschena
    • 1
  1. 1.Montana State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations