Abstract
Expected utility theory says that a rational agent’s preferences over risky alternatives can be ordered by the mathematical expectations of utilities for the possible outcomes of the alternatives. Moreover, a rational agent will choose among risky alternatives so as to maximize expected utility.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Allais, M., “Le comportement de l’homme rationnel devant de risque: critique des postulats et axiomes de l’ecole Americaine”. Econometrica 21 (1953), 503–546.
———, “The foundations of a positive theory of choice involving risk and a criticism of the postulates and axioms of the American school.” (1952), pp. 27–145 in Allais and Hagen, 1979.
———, “The so-called Allais paradox and rational decisions under uncertainty.” In Allais and Hagen, 1979, pp. 437–681
Allais, M., and O. Hagen (eds.), Expected Utility Hypotheses and the Allais Paradox. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel, 1979.
Arrow, K. J., Aspects of the Theory of Risk Bearing. Helsinki: Yrjö Jahssonin Säätiö, 1965.
Aumann, R. J., “Utility theory without the completeness axiom.” Econometrica 30 (1962), 445–462, and 32 (1964), 210–212.
Bell, D. E., “Regret in decision making under uncertainty.” Operations Research 30 (1982), 961–981.
———, “Disappointment in decision making under uncertainty.” Operations Research 33 (1985), 1–27.
Bernoulli, D., “Specimen theoriae novae de mensura sortis.” Commentarii Academiae Scientiarum Imperialis Petropolitanae 5 (1738), 175–192. Translated by L. Sommer, Econometrica 22 (1954), 23–36.
Chew, S. H., “A generalization of the quasilinear mean with applications to the measurement of income inequality and decision theory resolving the Allais paradox.” Econometrica 51 (1983), 1065–1092.
———, “A mixture set axiomatization of weighted utility theory.” Discussion paper 82–4, revised, College of Business and Public Administration, University of Arizona, 1982.
Chew, S. H., “Weighted utility theory and risk aversion.” Unpublished manuscript, 1984.
Chew, S. H., and K. R. Marimmon, “Alpha-nu choice theory: a generalization of expected utility theory.” Working paper 669, Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration, University of British Columbia, 1979
Chipman, J. S., “The foundations of utility.” Econometrica 28 (1960), 193–224.
Edwards, W., “The theory of decision making.” Psychological Bulletin 51 (1954), 380–417.
Ellsberg, D., “Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 75 (1961), 643–669.
Fishburn, P. C., Utility Theory for Decision Making. New York: Wiley, 1970. Reprinted, Krieger, 1979.
———, “On the nature of expected utility.” In Allais and Hagen, 1979, pp. 243–257.
———, “Subjective expected utility: a review of normative theories.” Theory and Decision 13 (1981), 139–199.
———, The Foundations of Expected Utility. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel, 1982. A
———, “Nontransitive measurable utility.” Journal of Mathematical Psychology 26 (1982), 31–67. b
———, “Transitive measurable utility.” Journal of Economic Theory 31 (1983), 293–317. a
———, “Ellsberg revisited: a new look at comparative probability.” Annals of Statistics 11 (1983), 1047–1059. b
———, “Dominance in SSB utility theory.” Journal of Economic Theory 34 (1984), 130–148. a
———, “Elements of risk analysis in nonlinear utility theory.” IN FOR 22 (1984), 81–97. b
———, “Probabilistic social choice based on simple voting comparisons.” Review of Economic Studies 51 (1984), 683–692. c
———, “SSB utility theory: an economic perspective.” Mathematical Social Sciences 8 (1984), 63–94. d
———, “SSB utility theory and decision making under uncertainty.” Mathematical Social Sciences 8 (1984), 253–285. e
———, “Nontransitive preference theory and the preference reversal phenomenon.” International Review of Economics and Business 32 (1985), 39–50.
Hausner, M., “Multidimensional utilities.” In Decision Processes (R. M. Thrall, C. H. Coombs, and R. L. Davis, eds.). New York: Wiley, 1954, pp. 167–180.
Herstein, I. N., and J. Milnor, “An axiomatic approach to measurable utility.” Econometrica 21 (1953), 291–297.
Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky, “Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk.” Econometrica 47 (1979), 263–291.
Loomes, G., and R. Sugden, “Regret theory: an alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty.” Economic Journal 92 (1982), 805–824.
———, “A rationale for preference reversal.” American Economic Review 73 (1983), 428–432.
MacCrimmmon, K. R., and S. Larsson, “Utility theory: axioms versus ‘paradoxes.’” In Allais and Hagen, 1979, pp. 333–409.
Machina, M. J., “‘Expected utility’ analysis without the independence axiom.” Econometrica 50 (1982), 277–323. a.
———, “A stronger characterization of declining risk aversion.” Econometrica 50 (1982), 1069–1079. b
May, K. O., “Intransitivity, utility, and the aggregation of preference patterns.” Econometrica 22 (1954), 1–13.
Morrison, D. G., “On the consistency of preferences in Allais’ paradox.” Behavioral Science 12 (1967), 373–383.
Pratt, J. W., “Risk aversion in the small and in the large.” Econometrica 32 (1964), 122–136.
Savage, L. J., The Foundations of Statistics. New York: Wiley, 1954. Second edition, Dover, 1972.
Schmeidler, D., “Subjective probability and expected utility without additivity.” Unpublished, 1984.
Slovic, P., and S. Lichtenstein, “Preference reversals: a broader perspective.” American Economic Review 73 (1983), 596–605.
Tversky, A., “Intransitivity of preferences.” Psychological Review 76 (1969), 31–48.
von Neumann, J., and O. Morgenstern, Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1944. Second edition, 1947; third edition, 1953.
Whitmore, G. A., and M. C. Findlay (eds.), Stochastic Dominance. Lexington, Massachusetts: Heath, 1978.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1986 Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fishburn, P.C. (1986). Alternatives to Expected Utility Theory for Risky Decisions. In: Samuelson, L. (eds) Microeconomic Theory. Recent Economic Thought Series, vol 6. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-4219-6_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-4219-6_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-8372-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-009-4219-6
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive