Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Utility theory

  • Published:
Journal of Soviet Mathematics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The principal aspects and results of utility theory are reviewed here.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature cited

  1. D. Blackwell and M. A. Girshick, Theory of Games and Statistical Decisions, Wiley, New York (1954).

    Google Scholar 

  2. É. Vilkas, “Utility theory and decision making,” in: Math. Methods in Social Science, No. 1, Vilnius (1971/1972), pp. 13–60.

    Google Scholar 

  3. É. Vilkas, “Utility theory and decision making,” in: Abstracts of Reports First All-Union Conference on Operations Research, Minsk (1972), pp. 68–76.

  4. É. Vilkas, “Some problems of compatibility of objectives,” in: Problems of Planning and Control of Economic Purposeful Systems, Novosibirsk (1972).

  5. E. B. Dynkin and A. I. Ovseevich, “On preference relations under conditions of uncertainty,” Ekonomika Mat. Metody,11, No. 2, 393–395 (1975).

    Google Scholar 

  6. R. D. Luce and H. Raiffa, Games and Decisions, Wiley, New York (1957).

    Google Scholar 

  7. V. I. Meleshko, “Utility theory and methods of introduction of global optimality criteria,” in: Adaptive Systems, No. 3, Zinatne, Riga (1973), pp. 67–98.

    Google Scholar 

  8. A. I. Morkelyunas, “Representative utilities of individual preference profiles,” Liet. Mat. Rinkinys,9, No. 3, 571–576 (1969).

    Google Scholar 

  9. A. I. Morkelyunas, “Representation of preference profile by utilities of alternatives,” in: Game Theory, Erevan (1973), pp. 240–241.

  10. J. von Neumann and O. Morgenstern, Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, Princeton Univ. Press (1953).

  11. G. Owen, Game Theory, Saunders, Philadelphia (1968).

    Google Scholar 

  12. P. Suppes and J. Zinnes, “Foundations of measurement theory,” in: Psychologic Measurements [Russian translation], Mir, Moscow (1967), pp. 9–110.

    Google Scholar 

  13. S. N. Afriat, “The validity of the expected utility hypothesis,” Metroeconomica,20, No. 1, 63–72 (1968).

    Google Scholar 

  14. R. J. Aumann, “Utility theory without the completeness axiom,” Econometrica,30, 445–462 (1962).

    Google Scholar 

  15. R. J. Aumann, “Measurable utility and the measurable choice theorem,” Colloq. Internat. Centre Nat. Rech. Scient., No. 171, 15–26 (1969).

    Google Scholar 

  16. J. S. Chipman, “Consumption theory without transitive indifference” (see [20]).

    Google Scholar 

  17. J. S. Chipman, “Non-Archimedean behavior under risk: an elementary analysis — with application to the theory of assets,” [20]see.

    Google Scholar 

  18. J. S. Chipman, “On the lexicographic representation of preference orderings,” [20]see.

    Google Scholar 

  19. J. S. Chipman, “Homothetic preferences and aggregation,” J. Econ. Theory,8, No. 1, 26–38 (1974).

    Google Scholar 

  20. J. S. Chipman, L. Hurwicz, M. K. Richter, and H. F. Sonnenschein (editors), Preferences, Utility, and Demand, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  21. M. Cerny, “Preference relations and order-preserving functions,” Ekon. Mat. Obz.,9, No. 3, 275–291 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  22. C. H. Coombs and D. E. Meyer, “Risk-preference in coin-toss games,” J. Math. Psychol.,6, No. 3, 514–527 (1969).

    Google Scholar 

  23. A. P. M. Coxon, “Mathematical applications in sociology: measurement and relations,” Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol.,1, No. 2, 159–174 (1970).

    Google Scholar 

  24. J. Fiala, “Axiomatic theory of investment evaluating,” Appl. Mat.,16, No. 6, 439–447 (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  25. P. C. Fishburn, “Bounded expected utility,” Ann. Math. Statist.,38, No. 4, 1054–1060 (1967).

    Google Scholar 

  26. P. C. Fishburn, “Utility theory,” Manag. Sci.,14, No. 5, 335–378 (1968).

    Google Scholar 

  27. P. C. Fishburn, “A study of independence in multivariate utility theory,” Econometrica,37, No. 1, 107–121 (1969).

    Google Scholar 

  28. P. C. Fishburn, Utility Theory for Decision Making, Wiley-Interscience, New York (1970).

    Google Scholar 

  29. P. C. Fishburn, “Intransitive indifference in preference theory: a survey,” Operat. Res.,18, No. 2, 207–228 (1970).

    Google Scholar 

  30. P. C. Fishburn, “Additive representations of real-valued functions on subsets of product sets,” J. Math. Psychology,8, No. 3, 382–388 (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  31. P. C. Fishburn, “A study of lexicographic expected utility,” Manag. Sci.,17, No. 11, 672–678 (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  32. P. C. Fishburn, “Alternative axiomatizations of one-way expected utility,” Ann. Math. Stat.,42, No. 5, 1648–1651 (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  33. P. C. Fishburn, “A mixture-set axiomatization of conditional subjective expected utility,” Econometrica,41, No. 1, 1–25 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  34. P. C. Fishburn, “Interval representations for interval orders and semiorders,” J. Math. Psychol.,10, No. 2, 91–105 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  35. P. C. Fishburn, Von Neumann-Morgenstern utility functions on two attributes,” Oper. Res.,22, No. 1, 35–45 (1974).

    Google Scholar 

  36. P. C. Fishburn, “Lexicographic orders, utilities and decision rules: a survey,” Manag. Sci.,20, No. 11, 1442–1471 (1974).

    Google Scholar 

  37. P. C. Fishburn, “Convex stochastic dominance with continuous distribution functions,” J. Econ. Theory,7, No. 2, 143–158 (1974).

    Google Scholar 

  38. P. C. Fishburn and R. L. Keeney, “Seven independence concepts and continuous multiattribute utility functions,” J. Math. Psychology,11, No. 3, 294–327 (1974).

    Google Scholar 

  39. L. Foldes, “Expected utility and continuity,” Rev. Econ. Stud.,39, No. 4, 407–421 (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  40. J. Fourastie, “Essay on the measure of economic quantities,” Math. Sci. Doctor Thesis, Univ. Paris (1972).

  41. E. Gordon, “Uzawa's preference axioms,” Rev. Econ. Stud.,38, No. 3, 319–329 (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  42. W. M. Gorman, “The structure of utility functions,” Rev. Econ. Stud.,35, No. 4, 367–390 (1968).

    Google Scholar 

  43. W. M. Gorman, “Conditions for additive separability,” Econometrica,36, Nos. 3–4, 605–609 (1968).

    Google Scholar 

  44. W. M. Gorman, “Preference, revealed preference, and indifference,” [20]see.

    Google Scholar 

  45. H. W. Gottinger, “The existence of classes of deterministic utility functions,” Jahrb. Nationalökonom. Statist.,183, No. 2, 97–124 (1969).

    Google Scholar 

  46. H. W. Gottinger, “Bernoulli's utility theory and historical ramifications,” Jahrb. Nationalökonom. Statist.,186, No. 6, 481–497 (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  47. J. M. Grandmont, “Continuity properties of a von Neumann-Morgenstern utility,” J. Econ. Theory,4, No. 1, 45–47 (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  48. B. Grodal, “Convexity of preferences,” Math. Mod. Econ., Amsterdam e.a., 441–448 (1974).

  49. B. Grodal, “A note on the space of preference relations,” J. Math. Econ.,1, No. 3, 279–294 (1974).

    Google Scholar 

  50. J. S. Hammond, “Simplifying the choice between uncertain prospects where preference is nonlinear,” Manag. Sci.,20, No. 7, 1047–1070 (1974).

    Google Scholar 

  51. H. G. Herzberger, “Ordinal preference and rational choice,” Econometrica,41, No. 2, 187–237 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  52. G. Huber, “Multiattribute utility models: a review of field and fieldlike studies,” Manag. Sci.,20, No. 10, 1393–1402 (1974).

    Google Scholar 

  53. W. R. Hughes, “A note on Marshallian and von Neumann-Morgenstern utility,” Theory Decis.,3, No. 4, 371–376 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  54. L. Hurwicz and H. Uzawa, “On the integrability of demand functions,” see[20].

    Google Scholar 

  55. M. R. Infante, “Notes on the utility function in the case of a continuous space,” Trab. Estadist. y Invest. Oper.,20, No. 1, 47–51 (1969).

    Google Scholar 

  56. M. R. Infante, “Note on utility theory: the relationship between the axiomatics of Von Neumann-Morgenstern and L. S. Savage,” Trab. Estadist. y Invest. Oper.,21, No. 3, 67–73 (1970).

    Google Scholar 

  57. P. J. Kalman, “Theory of consumer behavior when prices enter the utility function,” Econometrica,36, Nos. 3–4, 497–510 (1968).

    Google Scholar 

  58. P. J. Kalman, “Classes of utility functions admitting Tyrni's homogeneous saving function,” Rev. Econ. Stud.,36, No. 1, 122–124 (1969).

    Google Scholar 

  59. P. J. Kalman, “Remarks on the axiom of continuity and the connectedness of indifference classes,” Metroeconomica,21, No. 3, 286–287 (1969).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Y. Kannai, “Approximation of convex preferences,” J. Math. Econ.,1, No. 2, 101–106 (1974).

    Google Scholar 

  61. R. L. Keeney, “Evaluating multidimensional situations using a quasiseparable utility function,” IEEE Trans. Man-Mach. Syst.,9, No. 2, 25–28 (1968).

    Google Scholar 

  62. R. L. Keeney, “Quasiseparable utility functions,” Naval Res. Logist. Q.,15, No. 4, 551–565 (1968).

    Google Scholar 

  63. R. L. Keeney, “Utility independence and preferences for multiattributed consequences,” Oper. Res.,19, No. 4, 875–893 (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  64. R. L. Keeney, “Utility functions for multiattributed consequences,” Manag. Sci.,18, No. 5, Part 1, 276–287 (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  65. R. L. Keeney, “Risk independence and multiattributed utility functions,” Econometrica,41, No. 1, 27–34 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  66. R. L. Keeney, “Multiplicative utility functions,” Oper. Res.,22, No. 1, 22–34 (1974).

    Google Scholar 

  67. A. Y. C. Koo and D. Koo, “Revealed separable utility function,” Metroeconomica,25, No. 2, 158–165 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  68. T. C. Koopmans, “Representation of preference orderings over time,” Decision and Organization, North-Holland (1972), pp. 79–100.

  69. T. C. Koopmans, “Representation of preference orderings with independent components of consumption,” Decision and Organization, North-Holland (1972), pp. 57–78.

  70. D. H. Krantz, R. D. Luce, R. Suppes, and A. Tversky, Foundations of Measurement, Vol. 1, Academic Press, New York (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  71. L. J. Lau, “Duality and the structure of utility functions,” J. Econ. Theory,1, No. 4, 374–396 (1969).

    Google Scholar 

  72. J. Lemaire, “A new definition of equitability for hazard games, application to the St. Petersburg paradox,” Part 1, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré,B9, No. 2, 193–204 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  73. J. Lemaire, “A new definition of equitability for hazard games, application to the St. Petersburg paradox,” Part 2, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré,B9, No. 2, 205–214 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  74. D. V. Lindley, Making Decisions, Wiley, London (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  75. C. Lloyd, R. J. Rohr, and M. Walker, “A calculus proof of the existence of a continuous utility function,” Metroeconomica,19, No. 2, 103–112 (1967).

    Google Scholar 

  76. R. D. Luce and D. H. Krantz, “Conditional expected utility,” Econometrica,39, No. 2, 253–271 (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  77. R. D. Luce and P. Suppes, Preference, Utility and Subjective Probability, Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, Vol. III, Wiley, New York (1965).

    Google Scholar 

  78. T. Majumdar, The Measurement of Utility, Macmillan, London (1958).

    Google Scholar 

  79. C. F. Manara, “On the introduction of an index function of utility,” Period. Mat.,46, Nos. 1–2, 193–217 (1968).

    Google Scholar 

  80. K. Mera, “An empirical determination of a dynamic utility function,” Rev. Econ. Statist.,50, No. 1, 117–122 (1968).

    Google Scholar 

  81. B. G. Mirkin, “Description of some relations on the set of real-line intervals,” J. Math. Psychol.,9, No. 2, 243–252 (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  82. P. V. Moeske, “Revealed preference: equivalence theorem and indiced preorder,” Lect. Notes Oper. Res'. Math. Econ., No. 15, 92–109 (1969).

    Google Scholar 

  83. B. Peleg, “Utility functions for partially ordered topological spaces,” Econometrica,38, No. 1, 93–96 (1970).

    Google Scholar 

  84. R. A. Pollak, “Additive von Neumann-Morgenstern utility functions,” Econometrica,35, Nos. 3–4, 485–494 (1967).

    Google Scholar 

  85. R. A. Pollak, “The risk independence axiom,” Econometrica,41, No. 1, 35–39 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  86. R. Rabusseau and W. Reich, “Decisions of a person in uncertainty,” Proc. Operat. Res. 1, 123–141, Würzburg-Wien (1971).

  87. S. Rios, “Decisions in uncertainty,” Trab. Estadist. y Invest. Oper.,22, Nos. 1–2, 3–13 (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  88. Y. Sakai, “Equivalence of the weak and strong axioms of revealed preference without demand continuity assumptions: a “regularity condition” approach,” J. Econ. Theory,8, No. 3, 292–304 (1974).

    Google Scholar 

  89. L. J. Savage, The Foundations of Statistics, Wiley, New York (1954).

    Google Scholar 

  90. D. Schmeidler, “A condition for the completeness of partial preference relations,” Econometrica,39, No. 2, 403–404 (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  91. H. Schneeweiss, “Note on two dominance principles in decision theory,” Unternehmensforschung.,12, No. 4, 213–216 (1968).

    Google Scholar 

  92. A. K. Sen, “Choice functions and revealed preference,” Rev. Econ. Stud.,38, No. 3, 307–317 (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  93. V. Srinivasan and A. D. Shocker, “Linear programming techniques for multidimensional analysis of preferences,” Psychometrica,38, No. 3, 337–369 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  94. B. P. Stigum, “Finite state space and expected utility maximization,” Econometrica,40, No. 2, 253–259 (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  95. B. P. Stigum, “Revealed preference — a proof of Houthakker's theorem,” Econometrica,41, No. 3, 411–423 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  96. R. J. Titiev, “Measurement structures in classes that are not universally axiomatizable,” J. Math. Psychol.,9, No. 2, 200–205 (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  97. H. Uzawa, “Preference and rational choice in the theory of consumption,” Math. Methods Soc. Sci., 1959, K. J. Arrow, S. Karlin, P. Suppes (editors), 129–148, Stanford, Calif. Univ. Press (1960).

    Google Scholar 

  98. D. J. White, “Uncertain value functions,” Manag. Sci.,19, No. 1, 31–41 (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  99. D. J. White, “An imbedding approach to additive zero-one problems,” Manag. Sci.,20, No. 1, 85–100 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  100. R. B. Wilson, “The finer structure of revealed preference,” J. Econ. Theory,2, No. 4, 348–353 (1970).

    Google Scholar 

  101. M. E. Yaari, “Some remarks on measures of risk aversion and on their uses,” J. Econ. Theory,1, No. 3, 315–329 (1969).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. É. I. Vilkas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Translated from Itogi Nauki i Tekhniki. Teoriya Veroyatnostei, Matematicheskaya Statistika, Teoreticheskaya Kibernetika, Vol. 14, pp. 123–151, 1977.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vilkas, É.I. Utility theory. J Math Sci 13, 532–550 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01673630

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01673630

Keywords

Search

Navigation