Expected Utility Hypothesis

  • Mark J. Machina
Part of the The New Palgrave book series (NPA)

Abstract

The expected utility hypothesis of behaviour towards risk is essentially the hypothesis that the individual decision–maker possesses (or acts as if possessing) a ‘von Neumann-Morgenstern utility function’ U(·) or ‘von Neumann-Morgenstern utility index’ {} defined over some set of outcomes, and when faced with alternative risky prospects or ‘lotteries’ over these outcomes, will choose that prospect which maximizes the expected value of U(·) or {}. Since the outcomes could represent alternative wealth levels, multidimensional commodity bundles, time streams of consumption, or even non–numerical consequences (e.g. a trip to Paris), this approach can be applied to a tremendous variety of situations, and most theoretical research in the economics of uncertainty, as well as virtually all applied work in the field (e.g. optimal trade, investment or search under uncertainty) is undertaken in the expected utility framework.

Keywords

Income Expense Sortis Stake Glean 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. Allais, M. 1952. Fondements d’une théorie positive des choix comportant un risque et critique des postulats et axiomes de l’école Américaine. Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique 40 (1953), 257–332. Trans, as: The foundations of a positive theory of choice involving risk and a criticism of the postulates and axioms of the American School, in Allais and Hagen (1979).Google Scholar
  2. Allais, M. and Hagen, O. (eds) 1979. Expected Utility Hypotheses and the Allais Paradox. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  3. Arrow, K. 1974. Essays in the Theory of Risk–Bearing. Amsterdam: North–Holland.Google Scholar
  4. Atkinson, A. 1970. On the measurement of inequality. Journal of Economic Theory 2(3), September, 244–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Batra, R. 1975. The Pure Theory of International Trade under Uncertainty. London: Macmillan; New York: Halsted Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baumol, W. 1951. The Neumann–Morgenstern utility index: an ordinalist view. Journal of Political Economy 59(1), February, 61–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baumol, W. 1958. The cardinal utility which is ordinal. Economic Journal 68, December, 665–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bell, D. 1982. Regret in decision making under uncertainty. Operations Research 30, September–October, 961–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bernoulli, D. 1738. Specimen theoriae novae de mensura sortis. Commentarii Academiae Scientiarum Imperialis Petropolitanae. Trans, as: Exposition of a new theory on the measurement of risk, Econometrica 22, January 1954, 23–36.Google Scholar
  10. Chew, S.H. 1983. A generalization of the quasilinear mean with applications to the measurement of income inequality and decision theory resolving the Allais paradox. Econometrica 51(4), July, 1065–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chew, S. and MacCrimmon, K. 1979. Alpha–Nu choice theory : a generalization of expected utility theory. University of British Columbia Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration Working Paper No. 669, July.Google Scholar
  12. Debreu, G. 1959. Theory of Value: An Axiomatic Analysis of Economic Equilibrium. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Edwards, W. 1955. The prediction of decisions among bets. Journal of Experimental Psychology 50(3), September, 201–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ellsberg, D. 1954. Classical and current notions of’measurable utility’. Economic Journal 64, September, 528–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fishburn, P. 1982. The Foundations of Expected Utility. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fishburn, P. 1983. Nontransitive measurable utility. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 26(1), August, 31–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Friedman, M. and Savage, L. 1948. The utility analysis of choices involving risk. Journal of Political Economy 56, August, 279–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Reprinted in Readings in Price Theory, ed. G. Stigler and K. Boulding, London: George Allen & Unwin, 1953; Chicago: R.D. Irwin, 1952.Google Scholar
  19. Grether, D. and Plott, C. 1979. Economic theory of choice and the preference reversal phenomenon. American Economic Review 69(4), September, 623–38.Google Scholar
  20. Hagen, O. 1979. Towards a positive theory of preferences under risk. In Allais and Hagen (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Herstein, I. and Milnor, J. 1953. An axiomatic approach to measurable utility. Econometrica 21, April, 291–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hey, J. 1979. Uncertainty in Microeconomics. Oxford: Martin Robinson; New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hirshleifer, J. 1965. Investment decision under uncertainty: choice theoretic approaches. Quarterly Journal of Economics 79, November, 509–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hirshleifer, J. 1966. Investment decision under uncertainty: applications of the state-preference approach. Quarterly Journal of Economics 80, May, 252–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hirshleifer, J. and Riley, J. 1979. The analytics of uncertainty and information — an expository survey. Journal of Economic Literature 17(4), December, 1375–421.Google Scholar
  26. Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. 1979. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2), March, 263–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Karmarkar, U. 1974. The effect of probabilities on the subjective evaluation of lotteries. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School of Management Working Paper No. 698–74, February.Google Scholar
  28. Karni, E. 1985. Decision Making under Uncertainty: the Case of State–Dependent Preferences. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Karni, E. 1985. Increasing risk with state dependent preferences. Journal of Economic Theory 35(1), 172–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Karni, E. and Safra, Z. 1984. ‘Preference reversal’ and the theory of choice under risk. Johns Hopkins University Working Papers in Economics No. 141.Google Scholar
  31. Levhari, D. and Srinivasan, T.N. 1969. Optimal savings under uncertainty. Review of Economic Studies 36–2, April, 153–64.Google Scholar
  32. Lichtenstein, S. and Slovic, P. 1971. Reversals of preferences between bids and choices in gambling decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology 89(1), July, 46–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lippman, S. and McCall, J. 1981. The economics of uncertainty: selected topics and probabilistic methods. In Handbook of Mathematical Economics, ed. K. Arrow and M. Intriligator, Vol. 1, Amsterdam: North–Holland.Google Scholar
  34. Loomes, G. and Sugden, R. 1982. Regret theory: an alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty. Economic Journal 92 (368), December, 805–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McCord, M. and de Neufville, R. 1983. Empirical demonstration that expected utility analysis is not operational. In Stigum and Wenstøp (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. MacCrimmon, K. and Larsson, S. 1979. Utility theory: axioms versus ‘paradoxes’. In Allais and Hagen (1979).Google Scholar
  37. Machina, M. 1982. ‘Expected utility’ analysis without the independence axiom. Econometrica 50(2), March, 277–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Machina, M. 1983a. Generalized expected utility analysis and the nature of observed violations of the independence axiom. In Stigum and Wenstøp (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Machina, M. 1983b. The economic theory of individual behavior toward risk: theory, evidence and new directions. Institute for Mathematical Studies in the Social Sciences Technical Report No. 433, Stanford University, October.Google Scholar
  40. Malinvaud, E. 1952. Note on von Neumann–Morgenstern’s strong independence axiom. Econometrica 20(4), October, 679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Markowitz, H. 1952. The utility of wealth. Journal of Political Economy 60, April, 151–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Marschak, J. 1950. Rational behavior, uncertain prospects and measurable utility. Econometrica 18, April, 111–41 (Errata, July 1950).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Menger, K. 1934. Das Unsicherheitsmoment in der Wertlehre. Zeitschrift für Nationalökonomie. Trans, as: The role of uncertainty in economics, in Essays in Mathematical Economics in Honor of Oskar Morgenstern, ed. M. Shubik, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967.Google Scholar
  44. Merton, R. 1969. Lifetime portfolio selection under uncertainty: the continuous time case. Review of Economics and Statistics 51(3), August, 247–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Morrison, D. 1967. On the consistency of preferences in Allais’ paradox. Behavioral Science 12(5), September, 373–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Moskowitz, H. 1974. Effects of problem representation and feedback on rational behavior in Allais and Morlat–type problems. Decision Sciences 2.Google Scholar
  47. Mosteller, F. and Nogee, P. 1951. An experimental measurement of utility. Journal of Political Economy 59, October, 371–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pratt, J. 1964. Risk aversion in the small and in the large. Econometrica 32, January–April, 122–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Quiggin, J. 1982. A theory of anticipated utility. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 3(4), December, 323–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Quirk, J. and Saposnick, R. 1962. Admissibility and measurable utility functions. Review of Economic Studies 29, February, 140–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Raiffa, H. 1968. Decision Analysis: Introductory Lectures on Choice under Uncertainty. Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  52. Ramsey, F. 1926. Truth and probability. In The Foundations of Mathematics and Other Logical Essays, ed. R. Braithwaite, New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1931.Google Scholar
  53. Reprinted in Foundations: Essays in Philosoph, Logic, Mathematics and Economics, ed. D. Mellor, New Jersey: Humanities Press, 1978.Google Scholar
  54. Ross, S. 1981. Some stronger measures of risk aversion in the small and in the large, with applications. Econometrica 49(3), May, 621–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rothschild, M. and Stiglitz, J. 1970. Increasing risk I: a definition. Journal of Economic Theory 2(3), September, 225–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rothschild, M. and Stiglitz, J. 1971. Increasing risk II: its economic consequences. Journal of Economic Theory 3(1), March, 66–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Safra, Z. 1985. Existence of equilibrium for Walrasian endowment games. Journal of Economic Theory 37(2), 366–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Samuelson, P. 1950. Probability and attempts to measure utility. Economic Review 1, July, 167–73. Reprinted in Stiglitz (1965).Google Scholar
  59. Samuelson, P. 1952. Probability, utility, and the independence axiom. Econometrica 20, October, 670–78. Reprinted in Stiglitz (1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Savage, L. 1954. The Foundations of Statistics. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Enlarged and revised edn, New York: Dover, 1972.Google Scholar
  61. Slovic, P. and Tversky, A. 1974. Who accepts Savage’s Axiom? Behavioral Science 19(6), November, 368–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Stiglitz, J. (ed.) 1965. Collected Scientific Papers of Paul A. Samuelson, Vol. 1. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  63. Stigum, B. and Wenstøp, F. (eds) 1983. Foundations of Utility and Risk Theory with Applications. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  64. von Neumann, J. and Morgenstern, O. 1944. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 2nd edn, 1947; 3rd edn, 1953.Google Scholar
  65. Whitmore, G. and Findlay, M. (eds) 1978. Stochastic Dominance: An Approach to Decision Making Under Risk. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark J. Machina

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations