IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v32y1986i1p56-60.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

"Lottery Equivalents": Reduction of the Certainty Effect Problem in Utility Assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Mark McCord

    (Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210)

  • Richard de Neufville

    (Technology and Policy Program, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139)

Abstract

This note describes a simple procedure for assessing utility functions which avoids many difficulties of the standard techniques. The conventional methods suffer from at least three drawbacks; they (1) generate utility functions that depend on the probability levels used; (2) chain responses from one question to the next, so that any bias is propagated and even magnified; and (3) change ranges and reference points constantly, introducing range effects and other distortions. Noting the evidence linking the dependence of utility functions on the "certainty effect," our method: (1) compares lotteries with other lotteries rather than certain amounts; (2) does not "chain" responses; and (3) consistently uses "elementary lotteries" which control for range and reference points. Experimental work supports the proposed procedure.

Suggested Citation

  • Mark McCord & Richard de Neufville, 1986. ""Lottery Equivalents": Reduction of the Certainty Effect Problem in Utility Assessment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(1), pages 56-60, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:32:y:1986:i:1:p:56-60
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.32.1.56
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.1.56
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.32.1.56?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
    ---><---

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:32:y:1986:i:1:p:56-60. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.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.