Annals of Operations Research

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 273–298 | Cite as

Axiomatic utility theories with the betweenness property

  • S. H. Chew
Part IV New Results In Nonlinear Preference Theory

Abstract

This paper focuses on the betweenness property of expected utility theory. We provide an axiomatization of the class of betweenness-conforming utility theories. Subclasses of betweenness-conforming preferences are axiomatized with ‘substitution’ axioms of intermediate generality. The latter axioms incorporate specifically the effects of replacing a certain outcome with a lottery that is indifferent to it. Our representation is applied to the second-price auction mechanism where we show that its demand-revelation property under expected utility is not robust with respect to the class of betweenness-conforming preferences.

Keywords

Utility Theory Expected Utility Theory Auction Mechanism Intermediate Generality Axiomatic Utility 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    M. Allais, Le comportement de l'homme rational devant le risque, Econometrica 21(1953),503.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    P. Billingsley,Convergence of Probability Measures (Wiley, New York, 1968).Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    S.H. Chew, A mixture-set axiomatization of weighted utility theory, Working Paper, University of Arizona (1982).Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    S.H. Chew, A generalization of the quasilinear mean with applications to measurement of income inequality and decision theory resolving the Allais paradox, Econometrica 51(1983)1065.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    S.H. Chew, Implicit weighted and semi-weighted utility theories,M-estimators and the non-demand revelation of second-price auctions for an uncertain auctioned object, Working Paper, Johns Hopkins University (1985).Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    S.H. Chew, An axiomatic characterization of the rank-dependent quasilinear mean generalizing the Gini mean and the quasilinear mean, Working Paper, Johns Hopkins University (1985).Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    S.H. Chew and K.R. MacCrimmon, Alpha-nu choice theory: A generalization of expected utility theory, Working Paper, UBC (1979).Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    S.H. Chew and K.R. MacCrimmon, Alpha utility theory, lottery compositions and the Allais paradox, Working Paper, UBC (1979).Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    S.H. Chew and M.H. Mao, A Schur-concave characterization of risk aversion for nonlinear, nonsmooth continuous preferences, Working Paper (1985).Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    S.H. Chew and W.S. Waller, Empirical tests of weighted utility theory, J. Mathematical Psychology 30(1986)1.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    E. Clarke, Multipart pricing of public goods, Public Choice 11(1971)17.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    J.C. Cox, B. Roberson and V.L. Smith, Theory and behavior of single object auctions, in:Research in Experimental Economics, Vol. 2, ed. V.L. Smith (JAI Press, Greenwich, 1982).Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    H.S.M. Coxeter,Geometry (Wiley, New York, 1969).Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    G. Debreu, A social equilibrium existence theorem, Proc. Natl. Academy of Sciences 38(1952)886.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    E. Dekel, An axiomatic characterization of preferences under uncertainty: Weakening the independence axiom, J. Economic Theory 22(1986)304.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    D. Donaldson and J.A. Weymark, A single-parameter generalization of the Gini indices of inequality, J. Economic Theory 22(1980)67.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    P.C. Fishburn, Transitive measurable utility, J. Economic Theory 31(1983)293.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    P.C. Fishburn, Implicit mean value and certainty equivalence, Econometrica 54(1986).Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    D. Grether and C. Plott, Economic theory of choice and the preference reversal phenomenon, American Economic Review 69(1979)623.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    T. Groves, Incentives in teams, Econometrica 41(1973)617.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    F. Gul, A theory of disappointment aversion, mimeo. (1988).Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    I.N. Herstein and J. Milnor, An axiomatic approach to measurable utility, Econometrica 21(1953)291.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    P.J. Huber,Robust Statistics (Wiley, New York, 1981).Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    D. Kahneman and A. Tversky, Prospect theory: An analysis of choice under risks, Econometrica 47(1979)263.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    E. Karni and Z. Safra, ‘Preference reversal’ and the observability of preferences by experimental methods, Econometrica 55(1987)675.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    E. Karni and Z. Safra, Dynamic consistency, revelations in auctions and the structure of preferences, mimeo. (1988).Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    K.R. MacCrimmon and S. Larsson, Utility theory: Axioms versus paradoxes, in:The Expected Utility Hypothesis and the Allais Paradox, ed. M. Allais and O. Hagen (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1979).Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    M. Machina, Expected utility analysis without the independence axiom, Econometrica 50(1982)277.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    Y. Nakamura, Nonlinear utility analysis, Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Davis (1984).Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    J. Quiggin, Anticipated utility theory, J. Economic Behavior and Organization (1982) 323.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    U. Segal, Axiomatic representation of expected utility with rank-dependent probabilities, in:Choice under Uncertainty, ed. P.C. Fishburn and I.H. LaValle, Ann. Oper. Res., this volume.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    A. Sen,On Economic Inequality (Oxford University Press, 1973).Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    W. Vickrey, Counterspeculation, auctions and competitive sealed tenders, J. Finance 16(1961)8.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    J. von Neumann and O. Morgenstern,Theory of Games and Economic Behavior (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1947).Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    R.J. Weber, The Allais paradox, dutch auctions, and alpha-utility theory, Working Paper, Northwestern University (1982).Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    M.E. Yaari, The dual theory of choice under risk: Risk aversion without diminishing marginal utility, Econometrica 55(1986)95.Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    Coombs and Huang, Empirical test of the betweenness axiom, J. Math. Psychology 13(1976)323.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© J.C. Baltzer AG, Scientific Publishing Company 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. H. Chew
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations