The aim of this paper is to propose a model of decision-making for lotteries. Lottery qualities are the key concepts of the theory. Qualities allow the derivation of optimal decision-making processes and are taken explicitly into account for lottery evaluation. Our contribution explains the major violations of the expected utility theory for decisions on two-point lotteries and shows the necessity of giving explicit consideration to lottery qualities. Judged certainty equivalent and choice certainty equivalent concepts are discussed in detail along with the comparison of lotteries. Examples are provided by using different test results in the literature.
KeywordsLottery choice Common ratio Preference reversal Pricing Lottery test Cognitive process Certainty equivalent
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Alarie, Yves and Georges Dionne (2004). “On the Necessity of Using Lottery Qualities,” Working Paper no 04-03. Canada Research Chair in Risk Management, HEC Montréal.Google Scholar
- Camerer, Colin F. (1992). Recent Tests of Generalizations of Expected Utility Theory, Kluwer Academic Publisher, 300 p.Google Scholar
- Conlisk, John (1996). “Why Bounded Rationality?,” Journal of Economic Literature 34, 669–770.Google Scholar
- Luce, R. Duncan (2000). Utility of Gains and Losses, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 331p.Google Scholar
- MacCrimon, Kenneth R. and Stig Larsson (1979). Utility Theory: Axioms versus Paradox in Expected Utility Hypothesis and The Allais Paradox, D. Reidel Publishing Company, 714p.Google Scholar
- Machina, Mark J. (1987). “Choice under Uncertainty: Problems Solved and Unsolved,” Journal of Economic Perspective 1, 121–154.Google Scholar
- Munkres, James R. (1975). Topology: A First Course, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 399 p.Google Scholar
- Payne, John W., James R. Bettman, and Eric J. Johnson (1993). The Adaptative Decision Maker, Cambridge University Press, 330 p.Google Scholar
- Tversky, Amos, Paul Slovic and Daniel Kahneman (1990). “The Causes of Preference Reversal,” American Economic Review 80, 204–217.Google Scholar
- Wu, George, and Alex B. Markle (2004). “An Empirical Test of Gain-Loss Separability in Prospect Theory,” Working paper, University of Chicago.Google Scholar