Theory and Decision

, Volume 70, Issue 3, pp 255–282 | Cite as

Interval scalability of rank-dependent utility

Article
  • 76 Downloads

Abstract

Luce and Narens (Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 29:1–72, 1985) showed that rank-dependent utility (RDU) is the most general interval scale utility model for binary lotteries. It can be easily established that this result cannot be generalized to lotteries with more than two outcomes. This article suggests several additional conditions to ensure RDU as the only utility model with the desired property of interval scalability in the general case. The related axiomatizations of some special cases of RDU of independent interest (the quantile utility, expected utility, and Yaari’s dual expected utility) are also given.

Keywords

Rank-dependent utility Interval scalability Meaningfulness 

JEL Classification

D81 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abbas A. E. (2010) Invariant multiattribute utility functions. Theory and Decision 68: 69–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abdellaoui M. (2002) A genuine rank-dependent generalization of the von Neumann-Morgenstern expected utility theorem. Econometrica 70(2): 717–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aczél J. (1966) Lectures on functional equations and their applications. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Aczél J., Gronau D., Schwaiger J. (1994) Increasing solutions of the homogeneity equation and of similar equations. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 182(2): 436–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aczél J., Moszner Z. (1994) New results on “scale” and “size” arguments justifying invariance properties of empirical indices and laws. Mathematical Social Science 28: 3–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bell E. D., Fishburn P. C. (2000) Utility functions for wealth. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 20: 5–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Birnbaum M. H. (1999) Paradoxes of Allais, stochastic dominance, and decision weights. In: Shanteau J., Mellers B. A., Schum D. A. (eds) Decision science and technology: Reflections on the contributions of Ward Edwards. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, pp 27–52Google Scholar
  8. Chambers C. P. (2009) An axiomatization of quantiles on the domain of distribution functions. Mathematical Finance 19: 335–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chateauneuf A. (1999) Comonotonicity axioms and rank-dependent expected utility theory for arbitrary consequences. Journal of Mathematical Economics 32: 21–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chew S. H., Epstein L. G. (1989a) A unifying approach to axiomatic non-expected utility theories. Journal of Economic Theory 49: 207–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chew S. H., Epstein L. G. (1989b) Axiomatic rank-dependent means. Annals of Operations Research 19: 199–309Google Scholar
  12. Debreu G. (1954) Representation of a preference ordering by a numerical function. In: Thrall R. M., Coombs C. H., Davis R. L. (eds) Decision processes. Wiley, New York, pp 159–165Google Scholar
  13. Fishburn P. C. (1980) Continua of stochastic dominance relations for unbounded probability distributions. Journal of Mathematical Economics 7: 271–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fodor J. C., Marichal J.-L., Roubens M. (1995) Characterization of the ordered weighted averaging operators. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 3(2): 236–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Green J., Jullien B. (1988) Ordinal independence in non-linear utility theory. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1: 355–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Köbberling V., Wakker P. P. (2003) Preference foundations for nonexpected utility: A generalized and simplified technique. Mathematics of Operations Research 28(3): 395–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kocsis I. (2009) Solution of a bisymmetry equation on a restricted domain. Publicationes Mathematicae Debrecen 75: 167–172Google Scholar
  18. Krantz D. H., Luce R. D., Suppes P., Tversky A. (1971) Foundations of measurement (Vol. 1). Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Liu L. (2004) A note on Luce-Fishburn axiomatization of rank-dependent utility. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 28(1): 55–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Luce R. D. (1988) Rank-dependent subjective expected-utility representations. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1(3): 305–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Luce R. D. (2000) Utility of gains and losses: Measurement-theoretical and experimental approaches. Erlbaum, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  22. Luce R. D., Fishburn P. C. (1995) A note on deriving rank-dependent utility using additive joint receipts. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 11(1): 5–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Luce R. D., Marley A. A. J. (2005) Ranked additive utility representations of gambles: Old and new axiomatizations. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 30(1): 21–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Luce R. D., Narens L. (1985) Classification of concatenation measurement structures according to scale type. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 29: 1–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Luce R. D., Krantz D. H., Suppes P., Tversky A. (1990) Foundations of measurement (Vol. 3). Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  26. Maksa G. (1999) Solution of generalized bisymmetry type equations without surjectivity assumptions. Aequationes Mathematicae 57: 50–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Maksa G. (2005) Quasisums and generalized associativity. Aequationes Mathematicae 69: 6–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Manski C. F. (1988) Ordinal utility models of decision making under uncertainty. Theory and Decision 25: 79–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marichal, J.-L. (1998). Aggregation operations for multicriteria decision aid. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Liège.Google Scholar
  30. Marichal J.-L., Mathonet P. (1999) A characterization of the ordered weighted averaging functions based on the ordered bisymmetry property. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 7(1): 93–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marley A. A. J., Luce R. D. (2002) A simple axiomatization of binary rank-dependent utility of gains (losses). Journal of Mathematical Psychology 46: 40–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nakamura Y. (1992) Multisymmetric structures and non-expected utility. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 36: 375–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Narens L. (2002) Theories of meaningfulness. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. Orlov A. I. (1979) Stability of socio-economical models (in Russian). Nauka, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  35. Ovchinnikov S. (1996) Means on ordered sets. Mathematical Social Science 32: 39–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ovchinnikov S. (2002) On order invariant aggregation functional. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 46(1): 12–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pfanzagl J. (1959) A general theory of measurement-applications to utility. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly 6: 283–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Quiggin J. (1982) A theory of anticipated utility. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 3(4): 324–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Quiggin J. (1993) Generalized expected utility theory: The rank-dependent model. Kluwer Academic Publishers, BostonGoogle Scholar
  40. Quiggin J., Chambers R. G. (2004) Invariant risk attitudes. Journal of Economic Theory 117: 96–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Quiggin J., Wakker P. (1994) The axiomatic basis of anticipated utility theory: A clarification. Journal of Economic Theory 64: 486–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Radó F., Baker J. A. (1987) Pexider’s equation and aggregation of allocations. Aequationes Mathematicae 32: 227–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Roberts F. S. (1979) Measurement theory, with applications to decisionmaking, utility, and the social sciences. Addison-Wesley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  44. Rostek M. (2010) Quantile maximization in decision theory. The Review of Economic Studies 77(1): 339–371Google Scholar
  45. Rothblum U. G. (1975) Multivariate constant risk posture. Journal of Economic Theory 10: 309–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schmeidler D. (1989) Subjective probability and expected utility without additivity. Econometrica 57: 571–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Segal U. (1989) Anticipated utility: A measure representation approach. Annals of Operation Research 19: 359–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Segal U. (1993) The measure representation: A correction. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 6: 99–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tversky A., Kahneman D. (1986) Rational choice and the framing of decisions. Journal of Business 59(4): S251–S278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wakker P. (1994) Separating marginal utility and probabilistic risk aversion. Theory and Decision 36: 1–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yaari M. E. (1987) The dual theory of choice under risk. Econometrica 55(1): 95–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yager R. R. (1988) On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multicriteria decision making. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 18: 183–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zank H. (2010) Consistent probability attitudes. Economic Theory 44: 167–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.St. Petersburg Institute for Economics and Mathematics RASSt. PetersburgRussia
  2. 2.European University at St. PetersburgSt. PetersburgRussia

Personalised recommendations