Skip to main content
Log in

Choice procedure consistent with similarity relations

  • Published:
Theory and Decision Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We deal with the approach, initiated by Rubinstein, which assumes that people, when evaluating pairs of lotteries, use similarity relations. We interpret these relations as a way of modelling the imperfect powers of discrimination of the human mind and study the relationship between preferences and similarities. The class of both preferences and similarities that we deal with is larger than that considered by Rubinstein. The extension is made because we do not want to restrict ourselves to lottery spaces. Thus, under the above interpretation of a similarity, we find that some of the axioms imposed by Rubinstein are not justified if we want to consider other fields of choice theory. We show that any preference consistent with a pair of similarities is monotone on a subset of the choice space. We establish the implication upon the similarities of the requirement of making indifferent alternatives with a component which is zero. Furthermore, we show that Rubinstein's general results can also be obtained in this larger class of both preferences and similarity relations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Armstrong, W. E. (1939), ‘The determinateness of the utility function’, Economic Journal 49. 453–467.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, W. E. (1948), ‘Uncertainty and the utility function’, Economic Journal 58, 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, W. E. (1950), ‘A note on the theory of consumer's behavior’, Oxford Economic Papers 2, 119–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, W. E. (1951), ‘Utility and the theory of welfare’, Oxford Economic Papers 3, 259–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. C. (1970), ‘Intransive indifference in preference theory: a survey’, Operation Research 18, 207–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1936), ‘The pure theory of consumer's behavior’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 50, 545–593.

    Google Scholar 

  • Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1958), ‘Threshold in choice and the theory of demand’, Econometrica 26, 157–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. D. (1956), ‘Semiorders and a theory of utility discrimination’, Econometrica 24, 178–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. (1977), ‘Features of similarity’, Psychological Review 84, 327–352.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

The nontransitiveness of indifference must be recognized and explained on any theory of choice and the only explanation that seems to work is based on the imperfect powers of discrimination of the human mind whereby inequality becomes recognizable only when of sufficient magnitude.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Aizpurua, J.M., Nieto, J. & Uriarte, J.R. Choice procedure consistent with similarity relations. Theor Decis 29, 235–254 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00126804

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00126804

Keywords

Navigation