Theory and Decision

, Volume 50, Issue 1, pp 35–58 | Cite as

Lottery Dependent Utility: a Reexamination

Abstract

In order to accommodate empirically observed violations of the independence axiom of expected utility theory Becker and Sarin (1987) proposed their model of lottery dependent utility in which the utility of an outcome may depend on the lottery being evaluated. Although this dependence is intuitively very appealing and provides a simple functional form of the resulting decision criterion, lottery dependent utility has been nearly completely neglected in the recent literature on decision making under risk. The goal of this paper is to revive the lottery dependent utility model. Therefore, we derive first a sound axiomatic foundation of lottery dependent utility. Secondly, we develop a discontinuous variant of the model which can accommodate boundary effects and may lead to a lexicographic non-expected utility model. Both analyses are accompanied by considering some functional specifications which are in accordance with recent experimental results and may have significant applications in business and management science.

Lottery dependent utility Boundary effects Lexicographic utility 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Battalio, R.C., Kagel, J.H. and Jiranyakul, K. (1990), Testing between alternative models of choice under risk: Some initial results, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 3: 25-50.Google Scholar
  2. Becker, J.L. and Sarin, R.K. (1987), Lottery dependent utility, Management Science 33: 1367-1382.Google Scholar
  3. Camerer, C.F. (1992), Recent tests of generalized utility theories, in W. Edwards (ed.), Utility: Measurement, Theories, and Applications, pp. 207-251. Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  4. Camerer, C.F. and Ho, H.T. (1994), Violations of the betweenness axiom and nonlinearity in probability, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 8: 167-196.Google Scholar
  5. Chew, S.H. (1989), Axiomatic utility theories with the betweenness property, Annals of Operations Research 19: 273-298.Google Scholar
  6. Chew, S.H. and Epstein, L.G. (1989), A unifying approach to axiomatic nonexpected utility theories, Journal of Economic Theory 49: 207-240.Google Scholar
  7. Chew, S.H., Epstein, L.G. and Segal, U. (1991), Mixture symmetry and quadratic utility, Econometrica 59: 139-163.Google Scholar
  8. Chipman, J.S. (1971), Non-Archimedean behavior under risk: An elementary analysis with application to the theory of assets, in J.S. Chipman, L. Hurwicz, M.K. Richter and H.F. Sonnenschein (eds.), Preferences, Utility, and Demand: A Minnesota Symposium, pp. 289-318. New York.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, M. (1992), Security level, potential level, expected utility: A three-criteria decision model under risk, Theory and Decision 33: 101-134.Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, M. and Jaffray, J.Y. (1988), Preponderence of the certainty effect over probabillity distortion in decision making under risk, in B.R. Munier (ed.), Risk, Decision, and Rationality, pp. 173-187. Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  11. Conlisk, J. (1989), Three variants on the Allais Example, American Economic Review 79: 392-407.Google Scholar
  12. Debreu, G. (1964), Continuity properties of Paretian Utility, International Economic Review 5: 285-293.Google Scholar
  13. Dekel, E. (1986), An axiomatic characterization of preferences under uncertainty: Weakening the independence axiom, Journal of Economic Theory 40: 304-318.Google Scholar
  14. Diecidue, E., Schmidt, U. and Wakker, P.P. (1999), A theory of the gambling effect. Unpublished manuscript, Tilburg University.Google Scholar
  15. Encarnación, J. (1964), Constraints and the firmt's utility function, Review of Economic Studies 31: 113-120.Google Scholar
  16. Essid, S. (1997), Choice under risk with certainty and potential effects: A general axiomatic model, Mathematical Social Sciences 34: 223-247.Google Scholar
  17. Ferguson, C. (1965), The theory of multidimensional utility analysis in relation to multiple-goal business behavior: A synthesis, Southern Economic Journal 32: 169-175.Google Scholar
  18. Fishburn, P.C. (1971), A study of lexicographic expected utility, Management Science 17: 672-678.Google Scholar
  19. Gigliotti, G. and Sopher, B. (1993), A test of generalized expected utility theory, Theory and Decision 35: 75-106.Google Scholar
  20. Gilboa, I. (1988), A combination of expected utility and maxmin decision criteria, Journal of Mathematical Psychology 32: 405-420.Google Scholar
  21. Grandmont, J.M. (1972), Continuity properties of von Neumann-Morgenstern utility, Journal of Economic Theory 4: 45-57.Google Scholar
  22. Green, J.R. and Jullien, B. (1988), Ordinal independence in nonlinear utility theory, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1: 355-387.Google Scholar
  23. Gul, F. (1991), A theory of disappointment aversion, Econometrica 59: 667-686.Google Scholar
  24. Hadar, J. and Russell, W.R. (1969), Rules for ordering uncertain prospects, American Economic Review 59: 25-34.Google Scholar
  25. Harless, D.W. (1992), Predictions about indifference curves inside the unit triangle: A test of variants of expected utility theory, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 18: 391-414.Google Scholar
  26. Harless, D.W. and Camerer, C.F. (1994), The predictive utility of generalized expected utility theories, Econometrica 62: 1251-1289.Google Scholar
  27. Hey, J.D. and Orme, C. (1994), Investigating generalizations of expected utility theory using experimental data, Econometrica 62: 1291-1326.Google Scholar
  28. Jaffray, J.Y. (1988), Choice under risk and the security factor: An axiomatic model, Theory and Decision 24: 169-200.Google Scholar
  29. Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979), Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk, Econometrica 47: 263-291.Google Scholar
  30. Karni, E. and Schmeidler, D. (1991), Utility theory with uncertainty in: W. Hildenbrand and H. Sonnenschein (eds.), Handbook of Mathematical Economics, Vol. IV, pp. 1763-1831. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  31. Machina, J.M. (1982), Expected utility analysis without the independence axiom, Econometrica 50: 277-323.Google Scholar
  32. Neilson, W.S. (1992a), Some mixed results on boundary effects, Economics Letters 39: 275-278.Google Scholar
  33. Neilson, W.S. (1992b), A mixed fan hypothesis and its implications for behavior toward risk, Journal of Economic Behavior nd Organization 19: 197-211.Google Scholar
  34. Newman, P. and Read, R. (1961), representation problems for preference orderings, Journal of Economic Behavior 1: 149-169.Google Scholar
  35. Quiggin, J.P. and Wakker, P. (1994), The axiomatic basis of anticipated utility: A clarification, Journal of Economic Theory 64: 486-499.Google Scholar
  36. Puppe, C. (1991), Distorted Probabilities and Choice under Risk. Berlin.Google Scholar
  37. Schmidt, U. (1998), A measurement of the certainty effect, Journal of Mathematical Psychology 42: 32-47.Google Scholar
  38. Schmidt, U. (1999), An axiomatization of risk-value models. Unpublished manuscript, University of Kiel.Google Scholar
  39. Schmidt, U. (2000), Alternatives to expected utility: some formal theories, in: P.J. Hammond, S. Baberá and C. Seidl (eds.), Handbook of Utility Theory, Vol. II. Boston.Google Scholar
  40. Segal, U. (1989), Anticipated utility: A measure representation approach, Annals of Operations Research 19: 359-373.Google Scholar
  41. Segal, U. (1993), The measure representation: A correction, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 6: 99-107.Google Scholar
  42. Sugden, R. (2000), Alternatives to expected utility: Foundations and concepts, in: P.J. Hammond, S. Baberá and C. Seidl (eds.), Handbook of Utility Theory, Vol. II. Boston.Google Scholar
  43. Viscusi, W.K. (1989), Prospective reference theory: Toward an explanation of the paradoxes, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2: 235-264.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für Finanzwissenschaft und SozialpolitikChristian-Albrechts-Universität zu KielKielGermany

Personalised recommendations