Skip to main content
Log in

An experimental test of several generalized utility theories

  • Published:
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There is much evidence that people willingly violate expected utility theory when making choices. Several axiomatic theories have been proposed to explain some of this evidence, but there are few data that discriminate between the theories. To gather such data, an experiment was conducted using pairs of gambles with three levels of outcomes and many combinations of probabilities. Most typical findings were replicated, including the common consequence effect and different risk attitudes for gains and losses. There is evidence of both fanning out and fanning in of indifference curves, and both quasiconcavity and quasiconvexity of preferences. No theory can explain all the data, but prospect theory and the hypothesis that indifference curves fan out can explain most of them.

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

  • AllaisMaurice. (1953). “Le Comportement de L'homme Rationel Devant le Risque, Critique des Postulates et Axiomes de L'ecole Americaine.” Econometrica 21, 503–546.

    Google Scholar 

  • AllaisMaurice. (1979). “The So-called Allais Paradox and Rational Decisions Under Uncertainty.” In MauriceAllais and O.Hagen (eds.), The Expected Utility Hypothesis and the Allais Paradox, Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • BattalioRay C., John H.Kagel, and Don N.MacDonald. (1988). “Animals' Choices Over Uncertain Outcomes: Some Initial Experimental Evidence,” American Economic Review 75, 597–613.

    Google Scholar 

  • Battalio, Ray C., John H. Kagel, and Jiranyakul Komain. (1988). “Testing Between Alternative Models of Choice Under Uncertainty: Some Initial Results.” Texas A&M Department of Economics working paper.

  • BeckerJoao L., and RakeshSarin. (1987). “Lottery Dependent Utility,” Management Science 33, 1367–1382.

    Google Scholar 

  • BellDavid. (1982). “Regret in Decision Making under Uncertainty,” Operations Research 30, 961–981.

    Google Scholar 

  • BellDavid. (1985). “Disappointment in Decision Making Under Uncertainty,” Operations Research 33, 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • ChewSoo Hong. (1983). “A Generalization of the Quasilinear Mean with Applications to the Measurement of Income Inequality and Decision Theory Resolving the Allais Paradox, Econometrica 51, 1065–1092.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chew, Soo Hong. (1984). “An Axiomatization of the Rank Dependent Quasilinear Mean Generalizing the Gini Mean and the Quasilinear Mean,” John Hopkins University Department of Political Economy working paper.

  • Chew, Soo Hong. (1985). “Implicit-weighted and Semi-weighted Utility Theories, M-estimators, and Non-demand Revelation of Second-price Auctions for an Uncertain Auctioned Object,” Johns Hopkins University Department of Political Economy working paper #155.

  • Chew, Soo Hong, and Kenneth R. MacCrimmon. (1979). “Alpha-nu Choice Theory: An Axiomatization of Expected Utility,” University of British Columbia Faculty of Commerce working paper #669.

  • Chew, Soo Hong, and Larry G. Epstein. (1987a). “A Unifying Approach to Axiomatic Non-Expected Utility Theories,” John Hopkins University Department of Political Economy working paper.

  • Chew, Soo Hong, and Larry G. Epstein. (1987b). “Non-Expected Utility Preferences in a Temporal Framework with an Application to Consumption-Savings Behavior,” John Hopkins University Department of Political Economy working paper.

  • ChewSoo Hong, and William S.Waller. (1986). “Empirical Tests of Weighted Utility Theory,” Journal of Mathematical Psychology 30, 55–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • CoombsClyde, and LilyHuang. (1976). “Tests of the Betweenness Property of Expected Utility,” Journal of Mathematical Psychology 13, 323–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, Vincent P. (forthcoming). “Equilibrium without Independence,” Journal of Economic Theory.

  • DekelEddie. (1986). “An Axiomatic Characterization of Preferences under Uncertainty: Weakening the Independence Axiom,” Journal of Economic Theory 40, 304–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • EdwardsWard. (1954a). “The Theory of Decision Making,” Psychological Bulletin 51, 380–417.

    Google Scholar 

  • EdwardsWard. (1954b). “The Reliability of Probability Preferences,” American Journal of Psychology 67, 68–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • EdwardsWard. (1955). “The Prediction of Decisions Among Bets,” Journal of Experimental Psychology 51, 201–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • EinhornHillel J., and Robin M.Hogarth. (1985). “Ambiguity and Uncertainty in Probabilistic Inference,” Psychological Review 92, 433–461.

    Google Scholar 

  • EllsbergDaniel. (1961). “Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 75, 643–669.

    Google Scholar 

  • EncarnacionJ. (1987). “Preference Paradoxes and Lexicographic Choice,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 8, 231–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • FishburnPeter. (1982). “Nontransitive Measurable Utility,” Journal of Mathematical Psychology 26, 31–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • FishburnPeter. (1983). “Transitive Measurable Utility,” Journal of Economic Theory 31, 293–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • FishburnPeter. (1984). “SSB Utility Theory: An Economic Perspective,” Mathematical Social Science 8, 63–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grether, David. (1981). “Financial Incentive Effects and Individual Decision Making”, California Institute of Technology working paper 401.

  • GretherDavid, and Charles R.Plott. (1979). “Economic Theory of Choice and the Preference Reversal Phenomenon,” American Economic Review 69, 623–638.

    Google Scholar 

  • HandaJagdish. (1977). “Risk, Probabilities, and a New Theory of Cardinal Utility,” Journal of Political Economy 85, 97–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harless, David W. (1988). “Predictions about Indifference Curves in the Unit Triangle: A Test of Competing Decision Theories”, Grinnell College working paper.

  • HersheyJohn, HowardKunreuther, and PaulSchoemaker. (1982). “Sources of Bias in Assessment Procedures for Utility Function,” Management Science 28, 936–954.

    Google Scholar 

  • HeyJohn D. (1984). “The Economics of Optimism and Pessimism: A Definition and Some Applications,” Kyklos 37, 181–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hey, John D. and Elisabetta Strazzera. (1988). “Estimation of Indifference Curves in the Marschak-Machina Triangle,” University of York Department of Economics working paper.

  • Hogarth, Robin, and Hillel Einhorn. (1987). “Venture Theory: A Model of Decision Weights,” University of Chicago Center for Decision Research working paper.

  • Hogarth, Robin, and Howard Kunreuther. (forthcoming). “Risk, Ambiguity, and Insurance,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty.

  • KahnemanDaniel, and AmosTversky. (1979). “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,” Econometrica 47, 263–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • KarmarkarUday S. (1978). “Subjectively Weighted Utility: A Descriptive Extension of the Expected Utility Model,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 21, 61–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • KellerRobin L. (1985). “The Effects of Problem Representation on the Sure-Thing and Substitution Principles,” Management Science 31, 738–751.

    Google Scholar 

  • LoomesGraham. (1988). “Further Evidence of the Impact of Regret and Disappointment in Choice under Uncertainty, Economica 55, 47–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • LoomesGraham, and RobertSugden. (1982). “Regret theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice under Uncertainty”, Economic Journal 92, 805–824.

    Google Scholar 

  • LoomesGraham and RobertSugden. (1986). “Disappointment and Dynamic Consistency in Choice under Uncertainty,” Review of Economic Studies 53, 271–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • LoomesGraham, and RobertSugden. (1987a). “Some Implications of a More General Form of Regret Theory,” Journal of Economic Theory 41, 270–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • LoomesGraham, and RobertSugden. (1987b). “Testing for Regret and Disappointment in Choice under Uncertainty,” Economic Journal 97, 118–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • LuceR. Duncan, and LouisNarens. (1985). “Classification of Concatenation Measurement Structures According to Scale Type,” Journal of Mathematical Psychology 29, 1–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCrimmon, Kenneth R. (1965). “An Experimental Study of the Decision Making Behavior of Business Executives,” unpublished dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.

  • MacCrimmonKenneth R. and StigLarsson. (1979). “Utility Theory: Axioms Versus Paradoxes.” In MauriceAllais and O.Hagen (eds.), The Expected Utility Hypothesis and the Allais Paradox, Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Co..

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCrimmonKenneth R., and MasanaoToda. (1969). “The Experimental Determination of Indifference Curves,” Review of Economic Studies 36, 433–451.

    Google Scholar 

  • MachinaMark. (1982). “Expected Utility Analysis Without the Independence Axiom,” Econometrica 50, 277–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machina, Mark. (1983). “The Economic Theory of Individual Behavior Toward Risk,” Technical Report #433, Institute for Mathematical Studies in the Social Sciences, Stanford University.

  • MarkowitzHarry. (1952). “The Utility of Wealth,” Journal of Political Economy 60, 151–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • MarschakJacob. (1950). “Rational Behavior, Uncertain Prospects, and Measurable Utility,” Econometrica 18, 111–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCordMark, and RicharddeNeufville. (1986). “Lottery Equivalents: Reduction of the Certainty Effect Problem in Utility Assessment,” Management Science, 32, 56–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • MoskowitzHerbert. (1974). “Effects of Problem Representation and Feedback on Rational Behavior in Allais and Morlat-type Problems, Decision Sciences 5, 225–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • PayneJohn W. (1973). “Alternative Approaches to Decision Making Under Risk: Moments versus Risk Dimensions,” Psychological Bulletin 80, 439–453.

    Google Scholar 

  • PrestonMalcolm G. and PhilipBaratta. (1948). “An Experimental Study of the Auction-Value of an Uncertain Outcome”, American Journal of Psychology 61, 183–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • QuigginJohn. (1982). “A Theory of Anticipated Utility,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 3, 323–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • QuigginJohn. (1985). “Subjective Utility, Anticipated Utility, and the Allais Paradox,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 35, 94–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • RoellAlissa. (1987). “Risk Aversion in Quiggin and Yaari's Rank-Order Model of Choice under Uncertainty,” Economic Journal 97, 143–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubinstein, Ariel. (1986). “Similarity and Decision Making Under Risk (Is there a Utility Theory Resolution to the Allais Paradox?),” Hebrew University Department of Economics research report no. 156.

  • SchoemakerPaul. (1982). “The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidence and Limitations,” Journal of Economic Literature 20, 529–563.

    Google Scholar 

  • Segal, Uzi. (forthcoming). “The Ellsberg Paradox and Risk Aversion: An Anticipated Utility Approach,” International Economic Review.

  • SlovicPaul, and SarahLichtenstein. (1983). “Preference Reversals: A Broader Perspective,” American Economic Review 73, 596–605.

    Google Scholar 

  • SlovicPaul, and AmosTversky. (1974). “Who Accepts Savage's Axiom?,” Behavioral Science 19, 368–373.

    Google Scholar 

  • SmithVernon L. (1982). “Microeconomic Systems as an Experimental Science,” American Economic Review 72, 923–955.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starmer, C., and Robert Sugden. (1987a). “Experimental Evidence of the Impact of Regret on Choice Under Uncertainity,” Economics Research Centre discussion paper no. 23, University of East Anglia.

  • Starmer, C., and Robert Sugden. (1987b). ‘Violations of the Independence Axiom: An Experimental Test of Some Competing Hypotheses,” Economics Research Centre discussion paper no. 24, University of East Anglia.

  • Starmer, C., and Robert Sugden. (1987c). “Testing Prospect Theory,” Economics Research Centre discussion paper no. 26, University of East Anglia.

  • SugdenRobert. (1986). “New Developments in the Theory of Choice Under Uncertainty,” Bulletin of Economic Research 38, 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • ThalerRichard. (1985). “Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice,” Marketing Science 4, 199–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • TverskyAmos, and DanielKahneman. (1987). “Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions,” Journal of Business 59, S251-S278. Reprinted in Robin Hogarth and M. Reder (eds.) Rational Choice: The Cantrast Between Economics and Psychology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • WeberMartin and Colin F.Camerer. (1987). “Recent Developments in Modelling Preferences Under Risk,” OR Spektrum 9, 129–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, Robert J. (1982). “The Allais Paradox, Dutch Auctions, and Alpha-Utility Theory” Northwestern University MEDS Department discussion paper #536.

  • YaariMenhem E. (1987). “The Dual Theory of Choice Under Risk,” Econometrica 55, 95–115.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Additional information

The Wharton School,University of Pennsylvania

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Camerer, C.F. An experimental test of several generalized utility theories. J Risk Uncertainty 2, 61–104 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00055711

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00055711

Key words

Navigation