Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science

2001 Edition
| Editors: Saul I. Gass, Carl M. Harris

Certainty equivalence

  • Jeffery L. Guyse
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-0611-X_103

The certainty equivalent of a gamble or lottery is the sum of money for which, in a choice between the money and the gamble, the decision maker is indifferent between the two. Certainty equivalents are used to determine decision makers' attitudes toward risk, which can then be reflected in the shape of their utility functions. Certainty equivalents can also be used to order a set of alternatives. Classic examples of operationalizations of certainty equivalents used in the literature are minimum selling price, maximum buying price, and cash equivalent. Buying and selling prices may be theoretically different though, due to income effects.

By definition, the utility of the certainty equivalent must be equal to the expected utility of the gamble. With this in mind, the relationship between the certainty equivalent (CE) and the expected value (EV) of a gamble can reveal the decision maker's attitude toward risk. If CE < EV, then the individual is said to exhibit a risk-averse attitude. In...

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

References

  1. [1]
    Bostic, R., Herrnstein, R. J., and Luce, R. D. (1990). “The effect on the preference-reversal phenomenon of using choice indifference.” Jl. Economic Behavior and Organization, 13, 193–212.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Grether, D. and Plott, C. (1979). “Economic theory of choice and the preference reversal phenomenon.” American Economic Review, 69, 623–638.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Keeney, R. L. and Raiffa, H., eds. (1976). Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preference and Value Trade-offs, Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Lichtenstein, S. and Slovic, P. (1971). “Reversals of preference between bids and choices in gambling decisions.” Jl. Experimental Psychology, 89, 46–55.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Lichtenstein, S. and Slovic, P. (1973). “Response-induced reversals of preference in gambling: an extended replication in Las Vegas.” Jl. Experimental Psychology, 101, 16–20.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Lindman, H. R. (1971). “Inconsistent preferences among gambles.” Jl. Experimental Psychology, 89, 390–397.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Slovic, P. and Lichtenstein, S. (1983). “Preference reversals: a broader perspective.” American Economic Review, 73, 596–605.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Tversky, A., Slovic, P., and Kahneman, D. (1990). The causes of preference reversals.” American Economic Review, 80, 204–217.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Tversky, A. and Thaler, R. (1990). “Anomalies: preference reversals.” Jl. Economic Perspectives, 4, 201–211.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeffery L. Guyse
    • 1
  1. 1.University of CaliforniaIrvineUSA