IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/gamebe/v35y2001i1-2p54-79.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Expected Qualitative Utility Maximization

Author

Listed:
  • Lehmann, Daniel

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Lehmann, Daniel, 2001. "Expected Qualitative Utility Maximization," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 35(1-2), pages 54-79, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:gamebe:v:35:y:2001:i:1-2:p:54-79
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899-8256(98)90787-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Peter C. Fishburn, 1971. "A Study of Lexicographic Expected Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(11), pages 672-678, July.
    2. R.J. Aumann & S. Hart (ed.), 2002. "Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 3, number 3.
    3. Shapley, Lloyd S., 1977. "The St. Petersburg paradox: A con games?," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 439-442, April.
    4. Kannai, Yakar, 1992. "Non-standard concave utility functions," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 51-58.
    5. Fishburn, Peter C., 1994. "Utility and subjective probability," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, in: R.J. Aumann & S. Hart (ed.), Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 39, pages 1397-1435, Elsevier.
    6. Lawrence Blume & Adam Brandenburger & Eddie Dekel, 2014. "Lexicographic Probabilities and Choice Under Uncertainty," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Language of Game Theory Putting Epistemics into the Mathematics of Games, chapter 6, pages 137-160, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. Aumann, Robert J., 1977. "The St. Petersburg paradox: A discussion of some recent comments," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 443-445, April.
    8. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    9. Brito, D. L., 1975. "Becker's theory of the allocation of time and the St. Petersburg Paradox," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 123-126, February.
    10. Peter C. Fishburn, 1974. "Exceptional Paper--Lexicographic Orders, Utilities and Decision Rules: A Survey," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(11), pages 1442-1471, July.
    11. Lavalle, Irving H & Fishburn, Peter C, 1991. "Lexicographic State-Dependent Subjective Expected Utility," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 4(3), pages 251-269, July.
    12. Lavalle, Irving H & Fishburn, Peter C, 1992. "State-Independent Subjective Expected Lexicographic Utility," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 217-240, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rizza, Davide, 2015. "Nonstandard utilities for lexicographically decomposable orderings," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 105-109.
    2. Francis C. Chu & Joseph Y. Halpern, 2004. "Great expectations. Part II: Generalized expected utility as a universal decision rule," Game Theory and Information 0411004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Marcus Pivato, 2014. "Additive representation of separable preferences over infinite products," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(1), pages 31-83, June.
    4. Tsoukias, Alexis, 2008. "From decision theory to decision aiding methodology," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 187(1), pages 138-161, May.
    5. Herzberg, Frederik, 2009. "Elementary non-Archimedean utility theory," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 8-14, July.

    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. Christian Seidl, 2013. "The St. Petersburg Paradox at 300," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 247-264, June.
    2. James C. Cox & Eike B. Kroll & Marcel Lichters & Vjollca Sadiraj & Bodo Vogt, 2019. "The St. Petersburg paradox despite risk-seeking preferences: an experimental study," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(1), pages 27-44, April.
    3. Nakamura, Yutaka, 2002. "Lexicographic quasilinear utility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 157-178, May.
    4. Daniel Muller & Tshilidzi Marwala, 2019. "Relative Net Utility and the Saint Petersburg Paradox," Papers 1910.09544, arXiv.org, revised May 2020.
    5. Marcus Pivato, 2014. "Additive representation of separable preferences over infinite products," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(1), pages 31-83, June.
    6. LaValle, Irving H. & Fishburn, Peter C., 1996. "On the varieties of matrix probabilities in nonarchimedean decision theory," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 33-54.
    7. Benjamin Y. Hayden & Michael L. Platt, 2009. "The mean, the median, and the St. Petersburg paradox," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(4), pages 256-272, June.
    8. Bronshtein, E. & Fatkhiev, O., 2018. "A Note on St. Petersburg Paradox," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 48-53.
    9. Petri, Henrik, 2020. "Lexicographic probabilities and robustness," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 426-439.
    10. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:4:p:256-272 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1324-1369 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Luis C. Dias & Rudolf Vetschera, 2019. "Multiple local optima in Zeuthen–Hicks bargaining: an analysis of different preference models," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 7(1), pages 33-53, May.
    13. Nathan Berg & Gerd Gigerenzer, 2010. "As-if behavioral economics: neoclassical economics in disguise?," History of Economic Ideas, Fabrizio Serra Editore, Pisa - Roma, vol. 18(1), pages 133-166.
    14. Söllner, Matthias, 2008. "Menschliches Verhalten in elektronischen Märkten," Bayreuth Reports on Information Systems Management 34, University of Bayreuth, Chair of Information Systems Management.
    15. Glöckner, Andreas & Betsch, Tilmann, 2008. "Do people make decisions under risk based on ignorance? An empirical test of the priority heuristic against cumulative prospect theory," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 107(1), pages 75-95, September.
    16. Erick González & Rafael Alejandro Espín & Eduardo Fernández, 2016. "Negotiation Based on Fuzzy Logic and Knowledge Engineering: Some Case Studies," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 373-397, March.
    17. William H. Ruckle, 1981. "The Saint Petersburg Game: An Exposition of the Classical Treatment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(4), pages 241-250, December.
    18. Grüner, S. & Fietz, A., 2014. "Chancen, Grenzen und Barrieren staatlicher Regulierungspolitik – Eine verhaltensökonomische Betrachtung unter Berücksichtigung des individuellen landwirtschaftlichen Unternehmensverhaltens," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 49, March.
    19. van Damme, E.E.C., 2000. "Non-cooperative Games," Other publications TiSEM 51465233-a356-4d20-acc4-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    20. Jonathan Shalev, 2002. "Loss Aversion and Bargaining," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 52(3), pages 201-232, May.
    21. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & David Schmeidler, 2004. "Rationality of Belief Or: Why Savage's axioms are neither necessary nor sufficient for rationality, Second Version," PIER Working Paper Archive 07-001, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 03 Jan 2007.
    22. Sudeep Bhatia & Graham Loomes & Daniel Read, 2021. "Establishing the laws of preferential choice behavior," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(6), pages 1324-1369, November.

    More about this item

    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:eee:gamebe:v:35:y:2001:i:1-2:p:54-79. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622836 .

    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.