IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/stapro/v93y2014icp72-77.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A stochastic model for assessing the utility of chance

Author

Listed:
  • Bose, Sudip

Abstract

We consider the problem of assessing the utility of chance. One approach is based on offering a decision maker a choice between receiving a fixed chance and a gamble. We investigate theoretical properties of a class of models for the probability of preference of the gamble. We point out an alternative model that models behavior near the boundary more realistically.

Suggested Citation

  • Bose, Sudip, 2014. "A stochastic model for assessing the utility of chance," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 72-77.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:stapro:v:93:y:2014:i:c:p:72-77
    DOI: 10.1016/j.spl.2014.05.012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167715214001886
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.spl.2014.05.012?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. Peter H. Farquhar, 1984. "State of the Art---Utility Assessment Methods," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(11), pages 1283-1300, November.
    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. Krahnen, Jan Pieter & Rieck, Christian & Theissen, Erik, 1997. "Messung individueller Risikoeinstellungen," CFS Working Paper Series 1997/03, Center for Financial Studies (CFS).
    2. 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.
    3. Charles-Cadogan, G., 2021. "Incoherent Preferences," CRETA Online Discussion Paper Series 69, Centre for Research in Economic Theory and its Applications CRETA.
    4. Rakesh Sarin & Peter Wakker, 1997. "A Single-Stage Approach to Anscombe and Aumann's Expected Utility," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 64(3), pages 399-409.
    5. Tian, Guoqiang, 1991. "Implementation of the Walrasian Correspondence without Continuous, Convex, and Ordered Preferences," MPRA Paper 41298, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Wang, Wei & Xu, Huifu & Ma, Tiejun, 2023. "Optimal scenario-dependent multivariate shortfall risk measure and its application in risk capital allocation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 306(1), pages 322-347.
    7. Abdellaoui, Mohammed & Bleichrodt, Han, 2007. "Eliciting Gul's theory of disappointment aversion by the tradeoff method," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 631-645, December.
    8. Latifa Ghalayini & Dana Deeb, 2021. "Utility Measurement in Integrative Negotiation," Information Management and Business Review, AMH International, vol. 13(1), pages 1-15.
    9. Fu, Chao & Yang, Shanlin, 2012. "An evidential reasoning based consensus model for multiple attribute group decision analysis problems with interval-valued group consensus requirements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(1), pages 167-176.
    10. Elrod, Terry & Johnson, Richard D. & White, Joan, 2004. "A new integrated model of noncompensatory and compensatory decision strategies," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 1-19, September.
    11. Jay Simon, 2016. "On the existence of altruistic value and utility functions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 81(3), pages 371-391, September.
    12. Antoni Bosch-Domènech & Joaquim Silvestre, 2013. "Measuring risk aversion with lists: a new bias," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 75(4), pages 465-496, October.
    13. Melvin Novick, 1980. "Statistics as psychometrics," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 45(4), pages 411-424, December.
    14. Ryan O. Murphy & Robert H. W. ten Brincke, 2018. "Hierarchical Maximum Likelihood Parameter Estimation for Cumulative Prospect Theory: Improving the Reliability of Individual Risk Parameter Estimates," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 308-328, January.
    15. Marie-Louise Leroux & Gregory Ponthiere, 2009. "Optimal tax policy and expected longevity: a mean and variance utility approach," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 16(4), pages 514-537, August.
    16. Ola Andersson & Håkan J. Holm & Jean-Robert Tyran & Erik Wengström, 2016. "Risk Aversion Relates to Cognitive Ability: Preferences Or Noise?," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 14(5), pages 1129-1154.
    17. Vesna Prasnikar, 1993. "Binary Lottery Payoffs: Do They Control Risk Aversion?," Discussion Papers 1059, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    18. Dickhaut, John & Smith, Vernon & Xin, Baohua & Rustichini, Aldo, 2013. "Human economic choice as costly information processing," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 206-221.
    19. Liu Shi & Jianying Qiu & Jiangyan Li & Frank Bohn, 2024. "Consciously stochastic in preference reversals," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 68(3), pages 255-297, June.
    20. S. Cerreia-Vioglio & F. Maccheroni & M. Marinacci & A. Rustichini, 2017. "Multinomial logit processes and preference discovery: inside and outside the black box," Working Papers 615, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.

    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:stapro:v:93:y:2014:i:c:p:72-77. 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/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/622892/description#description .

    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.