Abstract
The (m, EU) model is an axiomatic prescriptive model for decision making under risk which takes the security factor into account. Methods for constructing the three functions of the model are proposed and their consistency is discussed: evidence of a response mode effect is found. The empirical validity of particular forms of the model, which are also submodels of EURDP theory, is examined.
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., ‘The foundations of a positive theory of choice involving risk and a criticism of the postulate and axioms of the American School’ (From 1952, French version). In M. Allais and Hagen (Eds), 1979, Expected Utility Hypotheses and the Allais Paradox, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 27–145 (1952).
Allais M., ‘The general theory of random choices in relation to the invariant cardinal utility function and the specific probability function. The (U,θ) models an overview’, in B. Munier (Ed.), Risk, decision and rationality, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 231–290 (1988).
Chew, S.H., ‘A mixture set axiomatization of weighted utility theory’, Unpublished manuscript, U. of Arizona (1981).
Delquié, Ph., de Neufville, R.& Mangnan, H., ‘Response-mode in preference elicitation’, Unpublished Manuscript, M.I.T. (1987).
Delquié, Ph., & de Neufville, R., ‘Inconsistencies in utility assessment and preference matching’, Unpublished manuscript, M.I.T. (1988).
Gilboa, I., ‘A combination of expected utility and Maxmin decision criteria1, working paper, Tel Aviv University #12–86 (1986).
Hershey, J., Kunreuther, H. & Schoemaker, P., ‘Sources of bias in assessment procedures for utility functions’, Management Science, 28, 936–953 (1982).
Hershey, J., & Schoemaker, P.,‘Probability versus certainty equivalence methods in utility measurement’, Management Science, 31, 1213–1231 (1985).
Jaffray, J.Y., ‘Choice under risk and the security factor: an axiomatic model’, Theory and Decision, 24, 169–200 (1988).
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A.,‘Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk’, Econometrica, 47, 263–291 (1979).
]Lopes, L.L., ‘Between hope and fear: the psychology of risk’, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (in press) (1986).
]McCord, M.R. & de Neufville, R.,’Lottery equivalents: Reduction of the certainty effect problem in utility assessment’, Management Science, 32, 56–60 (1986).
]Quiggin, J., ‘A theory of anticipated utility’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3, 323–343 (1982).
]Segal, U., ‘Non linear decision weights with the independence axiom’, UCLA Working paper #353 (1984).
]Yaari, M., ‘The dual theory of choice under risk’, Econometrica, 55, 95–115 (1987).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1991 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Essid, S., Jaffray, JY., Said, T. (1991). Experimental Study Of The (m, Eu) Model. In: Chikán, A. (eds) Progress in Decision, Utility and Risk Theory. Theory and Decision Library, vol 13. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3146-9_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3146-9_13
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-5387-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-3146-9
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive