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


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.


Utility Theory Expected Utility Theory Auction Mechanism Intermediate Generality Axiomatic Utility 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  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