Skip to main content
Log in

What if utility functions do not exist?

  • Published:
Theory and Decision Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Often the preferences of decision-makers are sufficiently inconsistent so as to preclude the existence of a utility function in the classical sense. Several alternatives for dealing with this situation are discussed. One alternative, that of modifying classical demands on utility functions, is emphasized and described in the context of the theory of measurement developed in recent years by behavioral scientists. The measurement theory approach is illustrated by discussing the concept of the dimension of a partial order. Even if we cannot assign numerical utility or worth values which reflect preferences in the classical utility function sense, from the measurement theory point of view we can still learn a lot about the preferences by finding several measures of worth so that a given alternative x is preferred to an alternative y if and only if x is ranked higher than y on each of the worth scales. If such measures can be found, it follows that the preferences define a partial order, and the smallest number of such scales needed is called the dimension of the partial order. If one-dimensional preferences (those amenable to classical utility assignments) cannot be found, then the next best thing is to search for partially ordered preferences with as small a dimension as possible. Several conditions under which a partial order is two-dimensional are described.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Bibliography

  1. W. E. Armstrong, ‘A Note on the Theory of Consumer's Behavior’, Oxford Economic Papers 2 (1950) 119–122.

    Google Scholar 

  2. W. E. Armstrong, ‘The Determinateness of the Utility Function’, Economics Journal 49 (1939) 453–467.

    Google Scholar 

  3. W. E. Armstrong, ‘Uncertainty and the Utility Function’, Economics Journal 58 (1948) 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  4. W. E. Armstrong, ‘Utility and the Theory of Welfare’, Oxford Economic Papers 3 (1951) 259–271.

    Google Scholar 

  5. K. A. Baker, Fishburn P. C., and Roberts, F. S., ‘A New Characterization of Partial Orders of Dimension Two’, Annals of New York Academy of Science 175 (1970) 23–24.

    Google Scholar 

  6. K. A. Baker, Fishburn P. C., and Roberts F. S., Partial Orders of Dimension 2. Interval Orders, and Interval Graphs, The Rand Corporation, P-4376, June 1970.

  7. G. Birkhoff, Lattice Theory, American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  8. H. D. Block and Marschak J., ‘Random Orderings and Stochastic Theories of Responses’, Contributions to Probability and Statistics (ed. by I. Olkin, S. Ghurye, W. Hoeffding, W. Madow, and H. Mann), Stanford, California, 1959, 97–132.

  9. N. C. Dalkey, The Delphi Method: An Experimental Study of Group Opinion, The Rand Corporation, RM-5888-PR, June 1969.

  10. Z. Domotor, Probabilistic Relational Structures and Their Applications, Institute for Mathematical Studies in the Social Sciences, Stanford University, Technical Report 144, 1969.

  11. B. Dushnik and Miller, E. W., ‘Partially Ordered Sets’, American Journal of Mathematics 63 (1941) 600–610.

    Google Scholar 

  12. P. C. Fishburn, Interval Orders, Mimeographed, 1969.

  13. P. C. Fishburn, ‘Intransitive Indifference in Preference Theory: A Survey’, Operations Research 18 (1970) 207–228.

    Google Scholar 

  14. P. C. Fishburn, ‘Intransitive Indifference with Unequal Indifference Intervals’, Journal of Mathematical Psychology 7 (1970) 144–149.

    Google Scholar 

  15. P. C. Fishburn, ‘Utility Theory’, Management Science 14 (1968) 335–378.

    Google Scholar 

  16. P. C. Fishburn, Utility Theory for Decision Making, New York, 1970.

  17. M. Friedman, ‘The Use of Ranks to Avoid the Assumption of Normality Implicit in the Analysis of Variance’, Journal of American Statistical Association 32 (1937) 675–699.

    Google Scholar 

  18. T. Hiraguchi, ‘On the Dimension of Orders’, Scientific Reports Kanazawa University 4 (1955) 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  19. P. W. Holland, Semiorder Theory I: Characterization of Semiorders, Dept. of Statistics, Harvard University, NS 44, 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  20. P. W. Holland, Semiorder Theory H: Linear Semiorders, Dept. of Statistics, Harvard University, NS 45, 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  21. J. G. Kemeny and Snell J. L., Mathematical Models in the Social Sciences, Chap. II, ‘Preference Rankings: An Axiomatic Approach’, Waltham, Mass., 1962.

  22. M. G. Kendall, Rank Correlation Methods, New York, 1962.

  23. D. H. Krantz, ‘Extensive Measurement in Semiorders’, Philosopy of Science 34 (1967) 348–362.

    Google Scholar 

  24. D. H. Krantz, ‘A Survey of Measurement Theory’, Mathematics of the Decision Sciences, Part II (ed. by G. B. Dantzig and A. F. Veinott), American Mathematical Society Lectures in Applied Mathematics, Vol. 12, Providence, Rhode Island, 1968.

  25. R. D. Luce, ‘Semiorders and a Theory of Utility Discrimination’, Econometrica 24 (1956) 178–191.

    Google Scholar 

  26. R. D. Luce and Suppes, P., ‘Preference, Utility, and Subjective Probability’, Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, III (ed. by R. D. Luce, R. R. Bush, and E. Galanter), New York, 1965, 249–410.

  27. J. Marschak, ‘Actual versus Consistent Decision Behavior’, Behavioral Science 9 (1964) 103–110.

    Google Scholar 

  28. A. N. Milgram, ‘Partially Ordered Sets, Separating Systems and Inductiveness’, Reports of a Mathematical Colloquium, Second Series, No. 1 (ed. by K. Menger), South Bend, Indiana, 1939.

  29. J. R. Miller, Assessing Alternative Transportation Systems, The Rand Corporation, RM-5865-DOT, April 1969

  30. O. Ore, Theory of Graphs, American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications, Vol. 38, 1962.

  31. H. Raiffa, Preferences for Multi-attributed Alternatives, The Rand Corporation, RM-5868-DOT/RC, April 1969.

  32. F. S. Roberts, ‘Homogeneous Families of Semiorders and the Theory of Probabilistic Consistency’, Journal of Mathematical Psychology 8 (1971) 248–263.

    Google Scholar 

  33. F. S. Roberts, ‘Indifference Graphs’, Proof Techniques in Graph Theory (ed. by F. Harary), New York, 1969, 139–146.

  34. F. S. Roberts, ‘On Nontransitive Indifference’, Journal of Mathematical Psychology 7 (1970) 243–258.

    Google Scholar 

  35. F. S. Roberts, ‘On the Boxicity and the Cubicity of a Graph’, in Recent Progress in Combinatorics (ed. by W. T. Tutte), New York, 1969, 301–310.

  36. F. S. Roberts, ‘On the Compatibility between a Graph and a Simple Order’, Journal of Combinatorial Theory 11 (1971) 28–38.

    Google Scholar 

  37. D. Scott and Suppes P., ‘Foundational Aspects of Theories of Measurement’, Journal of Symbolic Logic 23 (1958) 113–128.

    Google Scholar 

  38. P. Suppes and Zinnes J., ‘Basic Measurement Theory’, Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, I, (ed. by R. D. Luce, R. R. Bush, and E. Galanter), New York, 1963, 1–76.

  39. E. Szpilrajn, ‘Sur l'extension de l'ordre partiel’, Fundamenta Mathematicae 16 (1930) 386–389.

    Google Scholar 

  40. J. von Neumann, and Morgenstern O., Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, Princeton, New Jersey 1953.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

The author acknowledges the helpful comments of Joel Spencer and Ralph Strauch. He also thanks Kirby Baker and Peter Fishburn for permission to quote freely from earlier joint work on two-dimensional partial orders.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Roberts, F.S. What if utility functions do not exist?. Theor Decis 3, 126–139 (1972). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00141052

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00141052

Keywords

Navigation