Abstract
Most modern theories of risky choice originated in the expected utility hypothesis suggested by Daniel Bernoulli in 1738. The phenomenon that he sought to explain was risk aversion. Bernoulli rested the major burden of his explanation on the idea that wealth has diminishing marginal utility. An alternative explanation for risk aversion can be found in the idea that decision makers pay differential attention to the best and worst outcomes in gambles. The present paper contrasts prospect theory, the currently most popular theoretical descendant of Bernoulli’s theory,with an alternative theory based on the idea of rank dependent value.
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. ([1952]/1979), “The Foundations of a Positive Theory of Choice Involving Risk and a Criticism of the Postulates and Axioms of the American School,” in M. Allais and O. Hagen, eds., pp. 27–145.
Allais, M. (1986), “The General Theory of Random Choices in Relation to the Invariant Cardinal Utility Function and the Specific Probability Function”, Working paper No. C4475, Centre d’Analyse Economique, Ecole des Mines, Paris, France.
Allais, M. and Hagen, O., eds. (1979), Expected Utility Hypotheses and the Allais Paradox, Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel.
Bernoulli, D. ([1738]/1967), Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk, Farnsborough Hants, England: Gregg Press.
Borch, K. (1979), “Utility and Stochastic Dominance,” in M. Allais and O. Hagen, eds., pp. 193–201.
Friedman, M. and Savage, L. J. (1948), “The Utility Analysis of Choices Involving Risk,” Journal of Political Economy, August, 56, pp. 279–304.
Gorovitz, S. (1979), “The St. Petersburg Puzzle,” in M. Allais and O. Hagen, eds., pp. 259–70.
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979), “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk.” Econometrica, March. 47. pp. 263–91.
Lopes, L. L. (1984), “Risk and Distributional Inequality,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, August, 10, pp. 465–85.
Lopes, L. L. (1987), “Between Hope and Fear: The Psychology of Risk,” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 20, pp. 255–95.
MacCrimmon, K. R. and Larsson, S. (1979), “Utility Theory: Axioms Versus Paradoxes,” in M. Allais and O. Hagen, eds., pp. 333–409.
Markowitz, H. (1952), “The Utility of Wealth,” Journal of Political Economn y, April, 60, pp. 151–58.
Miyamoto, J. M. (1987), “Constraints on the Representation of Gambles in Prospect Theory,” Journal of Mathematical Psychology, December, 31, pp. 410–18.
Quiggin, J. (1982), “A Theory of Anticipated Utility,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, August, 3, pp. 323–43
Savage, L. J. (1954), The Foundations of Statistics, New York: Wiley.
Schneider, S. L. and Lopes, L. L. (1986), “Reflection in Preferences Under Risk: Who and When May Suggest Why,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, November, 12, pp. 535–48.
Slovic, P. and Tversky, A. (1974), “Who Accepts Savage’s Axiom?” Behaviora JSS cience. 19(6). pp. 368–73.
Weil, P. (1989), “Non-Expected Utility in Macroeconomics,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, forthcoming.
Yaari, M. E. (1987), “The Dual Theory of Choice Under Risk,” Econom etrica, January, 55, pp. 95–115.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1990 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lopes, L.L. (1990). Re-Modeling Risk Aversion: A Comparison of Bernoullian and Rank Dependent Value Approaches. In: Acting under Uncertainty: Multidisciplinary Conceptions. Theory and Decision Library, vol 13. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7873-8_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7873-8_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5785-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-7873-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive