Abstract
In the last twenty years an accumulating body of evidence has been produced against the Independence axiom of the Expected Utility theory (EU, henceforth) that preferences over random prospects are linear in the probabilities of the final outcomes. Such evidence has stimulated the development of several alternative nonlinear preference models. The main objective of this lecture is to present one specific class of results from that literature: we will discuss the experimental evidence and the theoretical models which have rejected the Independence axiom, in so far as it prescribes indifference toward randomisation of equally good alternatives. This restriction, known in the literature as the Betweenness axiom (Chew, 1983; and Dekel, 1986), is widely used in generalisations of expected utility and it is fundamental for their applications to game theory, because players whose preferences violate Betweenness may be unwilling to randomise as the mixed strategy Nash equilibrium requires. A central part of the lecture will indeed be concerned with the modifications which the rejection of the Betweenness axiom implies for the notion of (equilibrium in) mixed strategies in game theory.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Allais, M. (1953). “Le comportement de l’homme rationnel devant le risque: critique des postulates et axiomes de l’école americaine”, Econometrica, 21, pp.503-556.
Bernasconi, M. (1994). “Nonlinear Preferences and Two-stage Lotteries: Theories and Evidence”, Economic Journal, 104, pp. 54–70.
Bernasconi, M. and G. Loomes, (1992) “Failure of the Reduction Principle in an Ellsberg-type problem”, Theory and Decision, 32, pp. 77–100.
Camerer, C. (1989). “An experimental Test of Several Generalized Utility Theories”, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2, pp. 61–104.
Camerer, C. (1992). “Recent Tests of Generalizations of EU Theories”, in Utility: Theories, Measurement, and Applications, in W. Edwards (ed.), Dordrecht; Kluwer.
Camerer, C.F., and T.H. Ho (1994). “Violations of the Betweenness axiom and Nonlinearity in Probability”, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 8, pp. 167–196.
Chew, S.H., and K.R. MacCrimmon (1979), “Alpha-nu Theory: an Axiomatization of Expected Utility”, University of British Columbia Working Paper No. 669.
Chew, S.H. (1983). “A Generalization of the Quasilinear Mean with Applications to the Measurement of the Income Inequality and Decision Theory Resolving the Allais Paradox”, Econometrica, 53, pp. 1065–1092.
Chew, S.H., Epstein, L.G. and U. Segal (1991). “Mixture Symmetry and Quadratic utility”, Econometrica, 59, pp. 139–163.
Conlisk, J. (1989). “Three Variants on the Allais Example”, American Economic Review, 79, pp. 392–407.
Crawford, P. (1990). “Equilibrium without Independence”, Journal of Economic Theory, 50, pp. 127–154.
Dekel, E. (1986). “An axiomatic Characterisation of Preference under Uncertainty: Weakening the Independence Axiom”, Journal of Economic Theory, 40, pp. 304–318.
Dekel, E., Z. Safra, and U. Segal (1991). “Existence and Dynamic Consistency of Nash Equilibrium with Non-expected Utility Preferences”, Journal of Economic Theory, 55, pp. 229–246.
Dow, J., and S.R. da Costa Werlang (1994), “Nash Equilibrium under Knightian Uncertainty: Breaking down Backward Induction”, Journal of Economic Theory, 64, pp. 305–324.
Fishburn, P.C. (1983), “Transitive Measurable Utility”, Journal of Economic Theory, 31, pp. 293–317.
Fishburn P.C. and R. Rosenthal (1986), “Non-cooperative Games and Nontransitive Preferences”, Mathematical Social Science, 12, pp. 1–7.
Gul, F. (1991). “A Theory of Disappointment Aversion”, Econometrica, 59, pp. 667–687.
Harless, D.W., and C.F. Camerer (1994), “The Predictive Utility of Generalized Expected Utility Theories”, Econometrica, 65, pp. 1251–1289.
Hey, J.D. and, C. Orme, (1994), “Investing generalizations of expected utility theory using experimental data”, Econometrica, 62, pp. 1291–1326.
Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky, (1979). “Prospect Theory: an Analysis of Decision under Risk”, Econometrica, 47, pp. 263–291.
Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky (1984). “Choices, values and frames”, American Psychologist, 39, pp. 341–350.
Kami, E. and Z. Safra (1989a), “Ascending Bid Auctions with Behaviorally Consistent Bidders”, Annals of Operation Research, 19, pp. 435–444.
Kami, E. and Z. Safra (1989b), “Dynamic Consistency, Revelation in Auctions, and the Structure of Preferences”, Review of Economic Studies, 56, pp. 421–434.
Loomes, G., and R. Sugden (1986). “Disappointment and dynamic consistency in choice under uncertainty”, Review of Economics Studies, 53, pp. 271–282.
Machina, M.J. (1982). Expected Utility” Analysis without the Independence Axiom”, Econometrica, 50, pp. 277–323.
Machina, M.J. (1989). “Dynamic” Consistency and Non-Expected Utility Models of Choice Under Uncertainty”, Journal of Economic Literature, 27, pp. 1622–1668.
Marschak, J. (1950), “rational behaviour, uncertain prospects, and Expected Utility”, Econometrica, 18, pp. 111–141.
Quiggin, J. (1982). “A theory of Anticipated Utility”, Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, 3, pp. 323–343.
Segal, U. (1990), “Two-stage Lotteries without the Reduction axiom”, Econometrica, 58, pp. 349–377.
Skala, H.J. (1989), “Nonstandard Utilities and the Foundations of Game Theory”, International Journal of Game Theory, 1989, pp. 67–81.
Yaari, M.E. (1987), “The Dual Theory of Choice under Risk”, Econometrica, 55, pp. 95–115.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1999 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bernasconi, M. (1999). Randomisation, Mixed Strategies and the Reduction Axiom. In: Luini, L. (eds) Uncertain Decisions. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-5083-9_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-5083-9_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4613-7312-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-4615-5083-9
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive