IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jrisku/v5y1992i1p5-27.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Where Does Subjective Expected Utility Fail Descriptively?

Author

Listed:
  • Luce, R Duncan

Abstract

Subjective expected utility (SEU) rests on and implies four tenets of rational preferences; transitivity, monotonicity of consequences, independence of a common consequence, and accounting equivalences. Empirical evidence against transitivity and monotonicity is reevaluated and the opposite conclusion drawn using more recent data. The more complex accounting equivalences are descriptively implausible. The three simplest--idempotence, complementarity, and event commutativity--seem to be the only ones that may be descriptive. These, coupled with the postulate of an interval scale representation, result in a rank-dependent, weighted linear generalization of SEU. Further generalizations to nonbinary mixtures and to rank- and sign-dependent representations are also described. Problems in testing these theories are discussed. Copyright 1992 by Kluwer Academic Publishers

Suggested Citation

  • Luce, R Duncan, 1992. "Where Does Subjective Expected Utility Fail Descriptively?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 5-27, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jrisku:v:5:y:1992:i:1:p:5-27
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Birnbaum, Michael H. & Zimmermann, Jacqueline M., 1998. "Buying and Selling Prices of Investments: Configural Weight Model of Interactions Predicts Violations of Joint Independence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 74(2), pages 145-187, May.
    2. Birnbaum, Michael H. & Patton, Jamie N. & Lott, Melissa K., 1999. "Evidence against Rank-Dependent Utility Theories: Tests of Cumulative Independence, Interval Independence, Stochastic Dominance, and Transitivity, , , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 44-83, January.
    3. Jie Weiss & David Weiss & Ward Edwards, 2010. "A descriptive multi-attribute utility model for everyday decisions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 101-114, February.
    4. Peter Wakker & Anne Stiggelbout, 1995. "Explaining Distortions in Utility Elicitation through the Rank-dependent Model for Risky Choices," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 15(2), pages 180-186, June.
    5. Birnbaum, Michael H. & Chavez, Alfredo, 1997. "Tests of Theories of Decision Making: Violations of Branch Independence and Distribution Independence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 161-194, August.
    6. Edouard Kujawski, 2005. "A reference‐dependent regret model for deterministic tradeoff studies," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(2), pages 119-137.
    7. Janet Landa & Xiao Wang, 2001. "Bounded Rationality of Economic Man: Decision Making under Ecological, Social, and Institutional Constraints," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 217-235, May.

    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:kap:jrisku:v:5:y:1992:i:1:p:5-27. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.