Abstract
Few attempts have yet been made to interrelate the major axiom systems of expected utility theory such as those presented by von Neumann—Morgenstern, Marschak, Savage, and Arrow. This paper attempts to consolidate the theoretical and empirical research on these axioms by showing the correspondences among the major axioms of each system and highlighting their similarities and differences in dealing with concepts such as probability and utility.
Allais, Ellsberg, and others have proposed decision problems which are designed to elicit choices which violate the utility axioms. To the extent that people accept the axioms, choices which violate the axioms can be considered ‘paradoxical’. Whether people make such choices is an empirical matter, and we therefore investigate the rate of violation in previous and new experimental studies. Our results show that although there is considerable violation of the utility axioms, the rate can fall drastically as the probability and pay-off parameters are varied away from critical levels.
To provide a better understanding of the implications of the axioms and their relationship to some of the decision ‘paradoxes’, we have stated the implications as ‘rules’. Since the subjects were asked to rate the appeal of each rule as a decision norm, we can determine the relative attractiveness of each rule and can show the relationship between subjects’ actual choices and their agreement with the rules which guide choice. We found that people often prefer rules which contradict choices they have made.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Bibliography
Allais, M.: (1952). Fondements d’une Theorie Positive des Choix comportant un Risque et Critique des Postulats et Axiomes de l’Ecole Americaine’, Paris, CNRS.
Allais, M.: (1953). Le Comportement de L’Homme Rationnel Devant le Risque: Critique des Postulats et Axioms de l’ecole Americaine’, Econometrica 21, 503–546.
Allais, M.: The Foundations of a Positive Theory of Choice Involving Risk and a Criticism of the Postulates and the Axioms of the American School’, (Translation of 1952, 1976), Part II of this volume.
Anscombe, F., and Aumann, R. J.: (1963). ‘A Definition of Subjective Probability’, Annals of Mathematical Statistics 34, 199–205.
Armstrong, W.: (1951). Utility and the Theory of Welfare’, Oxford Economic Papers 3, 259–271.
Arrow, K.: (1971). Essays in the Theory of Risk-bearing, Markham Publishing Company, Chicago.
Aumann, R.: (1962). Utility Theory without the Completeness Axiom’, Econometrica 30, 445–462.
Bar-Hillel, M., and Margalit, A.: (1972). Newcombe’s Paradox Revisited’, British Journal of Philosophical Science 23, 295–304.
Becker, S., and Brownson, F.: (1964). What Price Ambiguity? or the Role of Ambiguity in Decision-making’, Journal of Political Economy 72, 62–73.
Bernoulli, D.: (1738). Specimen Theoriae Novae de Mensura Sortis’, Comentarii Acadeiae Scientiarum Imperiales Petropolitanae 5, 175–192. (Trans. by L. Sommer in Econometrica, 1954, Vol. 22.)
Borch, K.: (1968). The Allais Paradox: A Comment’, Behavioral Science 13, 488–489.
Chipman, J.: (1960). The Foundations of Utility’, Econometrica 28, 193–224.
Churchman, C.: (1961). Prediction and Optimal Decision, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Davidson, D., Suppes, P., and Siegel, S.: (1957). Decision Making: An Experimental Approach, Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
Ellsberg, D.: (1961). Risk, Ambiguity and the Savage Axioms’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 75, 643–669.
Feliner, W.: (1961). Distortion of Subjective Probabilities as a Reaction to Uncertainty’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 75, 670–689.
Fellner, W.: (1965). Probability and Profit, Homewood, Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Illinois.
Fishburn, P.: (1968). Utility Theory’, Management Science 14, 335–378.
Fishburn, P.: (1970). Utility Theory for Decision Making, Wiley, New York.
Gardner, M.: (1974). Mathematical Games’, Scientific American 230, 116–121.
Hagen, 0.: (1972). A New Axiomatization of Utility under Risk’, Teorie a Metoda IV-2, 55–80.
Hagen, 0.: (1971). New Foundations of Utility: Allais versus Morgenstern’, seminar paper, University of Heidelberg, 15 pp.
Hagen, 0.: (1976). Toward a Positive Theory of Preferences under Risk’, This volume.
Herstein, I. and Milnor, J.: (1953). An Axiomatic Approach to Measurable Utility’, Econometrica 21 291–297.
Jensen, N.: (1967). An Introduction to Bernoullian Utility Theory’, Swedish Journal of Economics 69, 163–183.
Knight, F.: (1921). Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, Houghton Mifflin and Co., Boston.
Kraft, C., Pratt, J., and Seidenberg, A.: (1959). Intuitive Probability on Finite Sets’, Annals of Mathematical Statistics 30, 408–419.
Larsson, S.: (1978). Studies in Utility Theory’, unpublished dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Luce, R.: (1956). Semi-order and a Theory of Utility Discrimination’, Econometrica 24, 178–191.
Luce, R., and Krantz, D.: (1971). Conditional Expected Utility’, Econometrica 39, 253–271.
Luce, R., and Raiffa, H.: (1957). Games and Decisions, Wiley, New York.
MacCrimmon, K.: (1965). An Experimental Study of the Decision Making Behavior of Business Executives, unpublished dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
MacCrimmon, K.: (1967). Consistent Choices and the Allais Problem: Theoretical Considerations and Empirical Results’, Working Paper 130, Western Management Science Institute, UCLA, 2O pp.
MacCrimmon, K.: (1968). Descriptive and Normative Implications of the Decision-theory Postulates’. In K. Borch and J. Mossin (Eds.), Risk and Uncertainty, Macmillan, New York, 3–23.
Marschak, J.: (1964). Actual versus Consistent Decision Behavior’, Behavioral Science 9, 103–110.
Marschak, J.: (1968). Decision Making: Economic Aspects’. In D. Sills (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences 4. Crowell Collier and Macmillan, New York, 42–55.
Marschak, J.: (1950). Rational Behavior, Uncertain Prospects, and Measurable Utility’, Econometrica 18, 111–141.
Marschak, J., and Radner, R.: (1972). Economic Theory of Teams, Yale University Press, New Haven, Chapter I.
May, K.: (1954). Intransitivity, utility, and the aggregation of preference patterns’, Econometrica 22, 1–13.
Morlat, G.: (1953). Comment on an Axiom of Savage’, Econometrie, CNRS, Paris, 156–7.
Morrison, D.: (1967). On the Consistency of Preferences in Allais Paradox’, Behavioral Science, 373–383.
Moskowitz, H.: (1974). Effects of Problem Representation and Feedback on Rational Behavior in Allais and Morlat-type Problems’, Decision Sciences 5, 225–241.
Nozick, R.: (1969). Newcombe’s Problem and Two Principles of Choice’. In N. Rescher (Ed.), Essays in Honor of Carl S. Hempel, D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht, Holland, 114–146.
Pratt, J., Raiffa, H., and Schlaifer, R.: (1964). The Foundations of Decision under Uncertainty: An Elementary Exposition’, American Statistical Association Journal, 59, 353–375.
Raiffa, H.: (1968). Decision Analysis, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.
Raiffa, H.: (1961). Risk, Ambiguity and the Savage Axioms: Comment’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 75, 690–694.
Ramsey, F.: (1926). In R. Braithwaite (Ed.) 1931, The Foundations of Mathematics and Other Logical Essays, Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Rapoport, A.: (1960). Fights, Games and Debates, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Roberts, H.: (1963). Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms: Comment’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 77, 327–342.
Rose, A.: (1963). Conditions for Irrational Choice’, Social Research 30, 151–152.
Samuelson, P.: (1952). Probability, Utility and the Independent Axiom’, Econometrica 20, 670–678.
Savage, L.: (1954). The Foundations of Statistics, Wiley, New York.
Selten, R.: (1968). Comments on Paper by MacCrimmon’. In K. Borch and J. Mossin (Eds.), Risk and Uncertainty, Macmillan, New York, p. 23.
Sen, A.: (1973). Behaviour and the Concept of Preference’, Economica 40, 241–259.
Sen, A.: (1970). Collective Choice and Social Welfare, Holden-Day, San Francisco. Slovic, P., and Tversky, A.: (1974). ‘Who Accepts Savage’s Axiom?’, Behavioral Science 19, 368–373.
Smith, V.: (1969). Measuring Non-monetary Utilities in Uncertain Choices: The Ellsberg Urn’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 83, 324–329.
Thrall, R.: (1954). Applications of Multidimensional Utility Theory’. In R. Thrall, C. Coombs, and R. Davis (Eds.), Decision Processes, Wiley, New York, pp. 181–186.
Tversky, A.: (1969). Intransitivitiesof Preferences’, Psychological Review 76, 11–48.
Villegas, C.: (1964). ‘On Qualitative Probability Q-Algebras’, Annals of Mathematical Statistics 35, 1787–17%.
Neumann, J., and Morgenstern, D.: (1947). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, 2nd edn., Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.
Weinstein, A.: (1968). ‘Individual Preference Intransitivity’, Southern Economic Journal 34, 335–343.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1979 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
MacCrimmon, K.R., Larsson, S. (1979). Utility Theory: Axioms Versus ‘Paradoxes’. In: Allais, M., Hagen, O. (eds) Expected Utility Hypotheses and the Allais Paradox. Theory and Decision Library, vol 21. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7629-1_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7629-1_15
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-8354-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-7629-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive