Theory and Decision

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 79–96 | Cite as

Expected utility with perturbed lotteries

  • Gilbert W. BassettJr.


The sensitivity of expected utility choice to slight variations in the description of lotteries is considered. This sensitivity is allowed to influence actual choice in what is called the expected utility with perturbed lotteries model because the slight variations are used to represent vagueness regarding the dollar-prize, probability description of a lottery. Example illustrate how this sensitivity can affect actual choice for an otherwise expected utility decision-maker and provide an explanation for some of the anomolous evidence on risky choice.


Slight Variation Actual Choice Risky Choice Probability Description Utility Choice 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Grether, David M. and Plott, Charles R.: 1979, ‘Economic Theory of Choice and the Preference Reversal Phenomenon’, American Economic Review, September, pp. 623–638.Google Scholar
  2. Kahneman, Daniel and Tversky, Amos: 1979, ‘Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk’, Econometrica, March, pp. 263–291.Google Scholar
  3. Levi, Isaac: 1984a, ‘Imprecision and Indeterminancy in Probability Judgement’, manuscript.Google Scholar
  4. Levi, Isaac: 1984b, ‘Probability and Security in Risk Assessment: The Paradoxes of Allais and Ellsberg’, manuscript.Google Scholar
  5. Loomes, Graham and Sugden, Robert: 1982, ‘Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice Under Uncertainty’, Economic Journal, December, pp. 805–824.Google Scholar
  6. Machina, Mark J.: 1982, ‘“Expected Utility” Analysis Without the Independence Axiom’, Econometrica, March, pp. 277–323.Google Scholar
  7. Samuelson, Paul: 1977, ‘St. Petersburg Paradoxes: Defanged, Dissected, and Historically Described’, Journal of Economic Literature, March, pp. 24–55.Google Scholar
  8. Schoemaker, Paul J.: 1982, ‘The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidence and Limitations’, Journal of Economic Literature, June, pp. 529–563.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gilbert W. BassettJr.
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of Illinois, ChicagoChicagoU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations