IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/prg/jnlpol/v2004y2004i1id449p48-60.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Petrohradský paradox a kardinální funkce užitku
[St Petersburg paradox and cardinal utility function]

Author

Listed:
  • Jiří Hlaváček
  • Michal Hlaváček

Abstract

The St Petersburg paradox could be used as an extreme demonstration of the utility function cardinalisation in case of stochastic utility. In this article we reassume the von Neumann and Mongernstern explanation to this paradox based on the risk aversion expressed by the strict concavity of the expected utility function. We suggest the utility function derived from the Pareto distribution of the probability of downfall of the subject in danger. Our cardinal utility function is based on the economically reasonable economic assumption. In contrast to the other often used cardinal utility functions it does not need the specification of its parameters ad hoc. Other advantage of our utility function is its explanation of the difference in decision making of different "players" in the St Petersburg casino, based on their wealth (including the explanation of the situational risk seeking behaviour of players under the boundary of survival).

Suggested Citation

  • Jiří Hlaváček & Michal Hlaváček, 2004. "Petrohradský paradox a kardinální funkce užitku [St Petersburg paradox and cardinal utility function]," Politická ekonomie, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2004(1), pages 48-60.
    • Handle: RePEc:prg:jnlpol:v:2004:y:2004:i:1:id:449:p:48-60
    DOI: 10.18267/j.polek.449
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://polek.vse.cz/doi/10.18267/j.polek.449.html
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: http://polek.vse.cz/doi/10.18267/j.polek.449.pdf
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.18267/j.polek.449?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Frederick Mosteller & Philip Nogee, 1951. "An Experimental Measurement of Utility," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(5), pages 371-371.
    2. Meyer, Jack, 1987. "Two-moment Decision Models and Expected Utility Maximization," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(3), pages 421-430, June.
    3. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1986. "Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 251-278, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bart de Langhe & Stefano Puntoni, 2015. "Bang for the Buck: Gain-Loss Ratio as a Driver of Judgment and Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(5), pages 1137-1163, May.
    2. Geiger, Gebhard, 2002. "On the statistical foundations of non-linear utility theory: The case of status quo-dependent preferences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 136(2), pages 449-465, January.
    3. Cathleen Johnson & Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Zhihua Li & Dennie Dolder & Peter P. Wakker, 2021. "Prince: An improved method for measuring incentivized preferences," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 62(1), pages 1-28, February.
    4. Huck, Steffen & Weizsacker, Georg, 1999. "Risk, complexity, and deviations from expected-value maximization: Results of a lottery choice experiment," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 699-715, December.
    5. Alexandre Truc, 2022. "The Disciplinary Mobility of Core Behavioral Economists," GREDEG Working Papers 2022-27, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    6. Güth, W., 1997. "Boundedly Rational Decision Emergence -A General Perspective and Some Selective Illustrations-," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 1997,29, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
    7. Thomas Eichner & Andreas Wagener, 2002. "Increases in Risk and the Welfare State," CESifo Working Paper Series 685, CESifo.
    8. Li, Chenguang & Sexton, Richard J., 2009. "Impacts of Retailers’ Pricing Strategies for Produce Commodities on Farmer Welfare," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 51720, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Unterschultz, James R., 2000. "New Instruments For Co-Ordination And Risk Sharing Within The Canadian Beef Industry," Project Report Series 24046, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    10. Barrett, Christopher B., 1999. "The effects of real exchange rate depreciation on stochastic producer prices in low-income agriculture," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 20(3), pages 215-230, May.
    11. Freeman, Steven F., 1997. "Good decisions : reconciling human rationality, evolution, and ethics," Working papers WP 3962-97., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    12. Alexandra Rausch & Alexander Brauneis, 2015. "It’s about how the task is set: the inclusion–exclusion effect and accountability in preprocessing management information," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 23(2), pages 313-344, June.
    13. Freeman, Mark C. & Wagner, Gernot & Zeckhauser, Richard J., 2015. "Climate Sensitivity Uncertainty: When Is Good News Bad?," Working Paper Series rwp15-002, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    14. Kumar, Alok, 2007. "Do the diversification choices of individual investors influence stock returns?," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 362-390, November.
    15. Jensen, Robert & Lleras-Muney, Adriana, 2012. "Does staying in school (and not working) prevent teen smoking and drinking?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 644-657.
    16. Michael Finus & Pedro Pintassilgo & Alistair Ulph, 2014. "International Environmental Agreements with Uncertainty, Learning and Risk Aversion," Department of Economics Working Papers 19/14, University of Bath, Department of Economics.
    17. Strauss, Jason, 2007. "Return-of-Premium Endorsements for Living-Benefits Insurance Policies: Rational or Irrational?," MPRA Paper 11103, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Barrett, Christopher B., 1998. "Immiserized growth in liberalized agriculture," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 743-753, May.
    19. Ellen Garbarino & Robert Slonim, 2007. "Preferences and decision errors in the winner’s curse," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 241-257, June.
    20. Elie Matta & Jean McGuire, 2008. "Too Risky to Hold? The Effect of Downside Risk, Accumulated Equity Wealth, and Firm Performance on CEO Equity Reduction," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 567-580, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    St Petersburg paradox; risk aversion; utility function cardinalisation; decisions under uncertainty;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D80 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - General
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:prg:jnlpol:v:2004:y:2004:i:1:id:449:p:48-60. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Stanislav Vojir (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/uevsecz.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.