Abstract
Most descriptive failures of Expected Utility Theory have been placed on the independence postulate. For a while, there was some debate on whether the blame should be put on the completeness postulate. We reenter into that debate providing experimental support for a robust theory of decision making. Consequences for decision analysis practice are outlined.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Bernasconi, M. (1992) Different frames for the independence axiom: an experimental investigation in individual decision making under risk, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 159–174.
Camerer, C. (1992) Recent tests of generalizations of Expected Utility Theory, in Edwards (ed) Utility Theories: Measurement and Applications, Kluwer
Currim, I. and Sarin, R. (1989) Prospect versus utility, Mgt. Science, 35, 22–41.
Farquhar, P. (1984) Utility assessment methods, Mgt. Science, 30, 1283–1300.
Hey, J. and Orme, C. (1994) Investigating generalizations of expected utility theory using experimental data, Econornetrica, 62, 1291–1326.
Kadane, J. (1992) Healthy skepticism as an expected utility explanation of the phenomena of Allais and Ellsberg, Theory and Decision, 32, 57–64.
Kimbrough, S. and Weber, M. (1994) An empirical comparison of utility assessment programs, to appear in EJOR.
Leland, J. (1994) Generalized similarity judgements: an alternative explanation for choice anomalies, Jour. Risk and Uncertainty, 9, 151–172.
MacCrimmon, K. and Larsson, S. (1979) Utility theory axioms or paradoxes, in Allais and Hagen (eds) Expected Utility Theory and the Allais Paradox, Reidel.
Phillips, L. (1984) A theory of requisite decision models, Acta Psychologica, 56, 29–48.
Rios, S., Rios-Insua, S., Rios Insua, D. and Pachon, J. (1994) Experiments in robust decision making, in Rios, Rios Insua, Rios-Insua (eds) Decision Theory and Decision Analysis: Trends and Challenges, Kluwer.
Rios Insua, D. (1994) Ambiguity, imprecision and sensitivity in Decision Theory, in Puri and Vilaplana (eds) New Progress in Probability and Statistics, SVP.
Rios Insua, D. and Martin, J. (1994) On the foundations of robust decision making, in Rios, Rios, Insua, Rios-Insua (eds) Decision Theory and Decision Analysis: Trends and Challenges, Kluwer.
Sarin, R. (1992) What now for generalized utility theory, in Edwards (ed) Utility Theories: Measurement and Applications, Kluwer.
Seidenfeld, T. (1988) Utility theory without independence or without ordering, Economics and Philosophy, 4, 267–315.
Von Neumann, J. and Morgenstern, O. (1944) Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, Princeton UP.
Von Nitzsch, R. and Weber, M. (1988) Utility function assessment on a micro-computer: a reliable, interactive procedure, Annals of Operations Research, 16, 149–160.
Weber, M. and Camerer, C. (1987) Recent developments in modelling preferences under risk, OR Spectrum, 9, 129–151.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1997 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ríos, S., Ríos-Insua, S., Ríos-Insua, D., Pachón, J., Pacios, M.A., Barreno, P.G. (1997). Allais Phenomena and Completeness of Preferences. In: Nau, R., Grønn, E., Machina, M., Bergland, O. (eds) Economic and Environmental Risk and Uncertainty. Theory and Decision Library, vol 35. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1360-3_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1360-3_17
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-4849-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-1360-3
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive