On Elements of Chance

One aspect of the utility of gambling may evidence itself in failures of idempotence, i.e., when all chance outcomes give rise to the same consequence the `gamble' may not be indifferent to its common consequence. Under the assumption of segregation, such gambles can be expressed as the joint receipt of the common consequence and what we call `an element of chance', namely, the same gamble with the common consequence replaced by the status quo. Generalizing, any gamble is indifferent to the joint receipt of its element of chance and a certain consequence, which is called the `kernel equivalent' of the gamble. Under idempotence, the kernel equivalent equals the certainty equivalent. Conditions are reported (Theorem 4) that are sufficient for the kernel equivalents to have the kind of utility representation first discussed by Luce and Fishburn (1991), including being idempotent. This utility representation of the kernel equivalents together with the derived form of utility over joint receipts yields a utility representation of the original structure. Possible forms for the utility of an element of chance are developed.     

A note on deriving rank-dependent utility using additive joint receipts

Luce and Fishburn (1991) derived a general rank-dependent utility model using an operation ⊕ of joint receipt. Their argument rested on an empirically supported property (now) calledsegregation and on the assumption that utility is additive over ⊕. This note generalizes that conclusion to the case where utility need not be additive over ⊕, but rather is of a more general form, which they derived but did not use in their article. Tversky and Kahneman (1992), conjecturing that the joint receipt of two sums of money is simply their sum, criticized that original model because ⊕=+ together with additive utility implies the unacceptable conclusion that the utility of money is proportional to money. In the present generalized theory, if ⊕=+, utility is a negative exponential function of money rather than proportional. Similar results hold for losses. The case of mixed gains and losses is less well understood.     

An Axiomatization of Cumulative Prospect Theory for Decision Under Risk

Cumulative prospect theory was introduced by Tversky and Kahneman so as to combine the empirical realism of their original prospect theory with the theoretical advantages of Quiggin's rank-dependent utility. Preference axiomatizations were provided in several papers. All those axiomatizations, however, only consider decision under uncertainty. No axiomatization has been provided as yet for decision under risk, i.e., the case in which given probabilities are transformed. Providing the latter is the purpose of this note. The resulting axiomatization is considerably simpler than that for uncertainty.     

Separating marginal utility and probabilistic risk aversion

This paper is motivated by the search for one cardinal utility for decisions under risk, welfare evaluations, and other contexts. This cardinal utility should have meaningprior to risk, with risk depending on cardinal utility, not the other way around. The rank-dependent utility model can reconcile such a view on utility with the position that risk attitude consists of more than marginal utility, by providing a separate risk component: a probabilistic risk attitude towards probability mixtures of lotteries, modeled through a transformation for cumulative probabilities. While this separation of risk attitude into two independent components is the characteristic feature of rank-dependent utility, it had not yet been axiomatized. Doing that is the purpose of this paper. Therefore, in the second part, the paper extends Yaari's axiomatization to nonlinear utility, and provides separate axiomatizations for increasing/decreasing marginal utility and for optimistic/pessimistic probability transformations. This is generalized to interpersonal comparability. It is also shown that two elementary and often-discussed properties — quasi-convexity (aversion) of preferences with respect to probability mixtures, and convexity (pessimism) of the probability transformation — are equivalent.     

Ranked Additive Utility Representations of Gambles: Old and New Axiomatizations

A number of classical as well as quite new utility representations for gains are explored with the aim of understanding the behavioral conditions that are necessary and sufficient for various subfamilies of successively stronger representations to hold. Among the utility representations are: ranked additive, weighted, rank-dependent (which includes cumulative prospect theory as a special case), gains decomposition, subjective expected, and independent increments*, where * denotes something new in this article. Among the key behavioral conditions are: idempotence, general event commutativity*, coalescing, gains decomposition, and component summing*. The structure of relations is sufficiently simple that certain key experiments are able to exclude entire classes of representations. For example, the class of rank-dependent utility models is very likely excluded because of empirical results about the failure of coalescing. Figures 1–3 summarize some of the primary results.JEL Classification  D46, D81     

Is choice the correct primitive? On using certainty equivalents and reference levels to predict choices among gambles

Choice is viewed as a derived, not a primitive, concept. Individual gambles are assigned subjective certainty equivalents (CE₁); the choice setX has an associated reference level [RL(X)] based on the CE₁S of its members; the outcomes of each gamble are recoded as deviations from the RL(X); and new CE₂S are constructed. The gamble having the largest CE₂ is chosen. The CEs are described by the rank-and sign-dependent theory of Luce (1992b). The concept of RL is studied axiomatically. The model predicts many behavioral anomalies and is tested with data sets of Mellers, Chang, Birnbaum, and Ordóñez (1992).     

Risk Premiums and Benefit Measures for Generalized-Expected-Utility Theories

Standard tools for the analysis of economic problems involving uncertainty, including risk premiums, certainty equivalents and the notions of absolute and relative risk aversion, are developed without making specific assumptions on functional form beyond the basic requirements of monotonicity, transitivity, continuity, and the presumption that individuals prefer certainty to risk. Individuals are not required to display probabilistic sophistication. The approach relies on the distance and benefit functions to characterize preferences relative to a given state-contingent vector of outcomes. The distance and benefit functions are used to derive absolute and relative risk premiums and to characterize preferences exhibiting constant absolute risk aversion (CARA) and constant relative risk aversion (CRRA). A generalization of the notion of Schur-concavity is presented. If preferences are generalized Schur concave, the absolute and relative risk premiums are generalized Schur convex, and the certainty equivalents are generalized Schur concave.     

Interval scalability of rank-dependent utility

Luce and Narens (Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 29:1–72, 1985) showed that rank-dependent utility (RDU) is the most general interval scale utility model for binary lotteries. It can be easily established that this result cannot be generalized to lotteries with more than two outcomes. This article suggests several additional conditions to ensure RDU as the only utility model with the desired property of interval scalability in the general case. The related axiomatizations of some special cases of RDU of independent interest (the quantile utility, expected utility, and Yaari’s dual expected utility) are also given.     

Coalescing,Event Commutativity,and Theories of Utility

Preferences satisfying rank-dependent utility exhibit three necessary properties: coalescing (forming the union of events having the same consequence), status-quo event commutativity, and rank-dependent additivity. The major result is that, under a few additional, relatively non-controversial, necessary conditions on binary gambles and assuming mappings are onto intervals, the converse is true. A number of other utility representations are checked for each of these three properties (see Table 2, Section 7).     

Subjective expected utility: A review of normative theories

This paper reviews theories of subjective expected utility for decision making under uncertainty. It focuses on normative interpretations and discusses the primitives, axioms and representation-uniqueness theorems for a number of theories. Similarities and differences among the various theories are highlighted. The interplay between realistic decision structures and structural axioms that facilitate mathematical derivations is also emphasized.The review attempts to be complete up to 1980. Among others, it includes theories developed by Ramsey; Savage; Suppes; Davidson and Suppes; Anscombe and Aumann; Pratt, Raiffa and Schlaifer; Fishburn; Bolker; Jeffrey; Pfanzagl; Luce and Krantz.     

A Microeconometric Test of Alternative Stochastic Theories of Risky Choice

The random preference, Fechner (or white noise), and constant error (or tremble) models of stochastic choice under risk are compared. Various combinations of these approaches are used with expected utility and rank-dependent theory. The resulting models are estimated in a random effects framework using experimental data from two samples of 46 subjects who each faced 90 pairwise choice problems. The best fitting model uses the random preference approach with a tremble mechanism, in conjunction with rank-dependent theory. As subjects gain experience, trembles become less frequent and there is less deviation from behaviour consistent with expected utility theory.     

Evaluating Time Streams of Income: Discounting What?

For decisions whose consequences accrue over time, there are several possible techniques to compute total utility. One is to discount utilities of future consequences at some appropriate rate. The second is to discount per-period certainty equivalents. And the third is to compute net present values (NPVs) of various possible streams and to then apply the utility function to these net present values. We find that the best approach is to first compute NPVs of various possible income streams and then take the utility of such NPVs. We show the drawbacks of other alternative models of evaluating income streams. The article discusses the advantages of the power and logarithmic forms in the modeling of time preference. These are the only forms for which utility of income and utility of consumption are strategically equivalent. Further, these forms permit the flexibility in the choice of a time period (e.g., monthly or quarterly) without modifying the utility function, thus simplifying analysis.     

Estimating representations of time preferences and models of probabilistic intertemporal choice on experimental data

We here estimate a number of alternatives to discounted-utility theory, such as quasi-hyperbolic discounting, generalized hyperbolic discounting, and rank-dependent discounted utility with three different models of probabilistic choice. The data come from a controlled laboratory experiment designed to reveal individual time preferences in two rounds of 100 binary-choice problems. Rank-dependent discounted utility and its special case—the maximization of present discounted value—turn out to be the best-fitting theory (for about two-thirds of all subjects). For a great majority of subjects (72%), the representation of time preferences in Luce’s choice model provides the best fit.     

Axiomatizing bounded rationality: the priority heuristic

This paper presents an axiomatic framework for the priority heuristic, a model of bounded rationality in Selten’s (in: Gigerenzer and Selten (eds.) Bounded rationality: the adaptive toolbox, 2001) spirit of using empirical evidence on heuristics. The priority heuristic predicts actual human choices between risky gambles well. It implies violations of expected utility theory such as common consequence effects, common ratio effects, the fourfold pattern of risk taking and the reflection effect. We present an axiomatization of a parameterized version of the heuristic which generalizes the heuristic in order to account for individual differences and inconsistencies. The axiomatization uses semiorders (Luce, Econometrica 24:178–191, 1956), which have an intransitive indifference part and a transitive strict preference component. The axiomatization suggests new testable predictions of the priority heuristic and makes it easier for theorists to study the relation between heuristics and other axiomatic theories such as cumulative prospect theory.     

Recent developments in modeling preferences: Uncertainty and ambiguity

In subjective expected utility (SEU), the decision weights people attach to events are their beliefs about the likelihood of events. Much empirical evidence, inspired by Ellsberg (1961) and others, shows that people prefer to bet on events they know more about, even when their beliefs are held constant. (They are averse to ambiguity, or uncertainty about probability.) We review evidence, recent theoretical explanations, and applications of research on ambiguity and SEU.Thanks to Jonathan Baron, James Dow, Peter Fishburn, Itzhak Gilboa, Gordon Hazen, Howard Kunreuther, Tomas Phillipson, David Schmeidler, Amos Tversky, the editor, and several anonymous referees for corrections and helpful comments. Camerer's contribution to this work was supported by the National Science Foundation, grant no. SES 88-09299. Weber's contribution was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsge-meinschaft, grant no. WE 993/5-1.     

Conditional expected,extensive utility

Luce and Krantz (1971) presented an axiom system for conditional expected utility. In this theory a conditional decision is a function whose domain is a non-null subevent and whose range is a subset of a set of consequences. Given a family of conditional decisions that is closed under unions of decisions whose domains are disjoint and under restrictions to non-null subevents, the second major primitive is an ordering of the family. Axioms were given that are adequate to construct a numerical utility function over decisions and a probability function over events for which the conditional expectation of the utility is order preserving. Several of the axioms are quite complex and seem a bit artificial, and the proof is very long. Here the structure is modified by adding to the set of outcomes a concatenation operation, and the representation theorem is modified by requiring that the utility function be additive over this binary operation as well as exhibiting the expected utility property. The advantages of this pair of changes are, first, it exploits the obvious fact that the union of consequences is itself a consequence; second, it reduces the mathematical burden carried by the set theoretic structure of conditional decisions and, as a result, the axioms can be made much easier to understand; and third, it permits a considerably shorter proof because one can draw more readily on known results. The major drawback of this approach is, of course, that it is inconsistent with the evidence that utility is not additive over consequences - at least, not over increasing amounts of a single good (diminishing marginal utility).This work was supported by a grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation to the Institute for Advanced Study. I wish to thank P. C. Fishburn and F. S. Roberts for their comments.     

Testing between alternative models of choice under uncertainty—Comment

Battaglio, Kagel, and Jiranyakul use experimental tests to compare rank-dependent expected utility (RDEU), regret theory, prospect theory, and Machina's generalized smooth preferences model. They conclude that none of these models consistently organizes the data. The purpose of this note is to point out that RDEU theory was tested in combination with a hypothesis on the choice of functional form that has been explicitly rejected by the original author of the model (Quiggin, 1982, 1987). When the original form of RDEU theory is tested, it performs quite well.     

How a certain internal consistency entails the expected utility dogma

If I am coherent, in the sense that I can always replace any subset of outcomes by their certainty equivalent (occurring with the sum of their probabilities), then I must act according to the dogma of maximizing an Exp {U}, ruling out Machina [1982], Allais [1952], and Ysidro [1950] functionals.