IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/restud/v58y1991i4p677-695..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Revealed Preference Theory for Expected Utility

Author

Listed:
  • Edward J. Green
  • Kent Osband

Abstract

Standard axiomatizations of expected-utility theory envision an agent with fixed probability assessments who can be observed to choose actions from varying opportunity sets (for instance, pairs of lotteries). These axiomatizations also envision that the agent's preferences among these actions depend on the state of nature only through clearly defined and observable consequences. This viewpoint may be unnecessarily restrictive as a basis for applying and evaluating the theory. We study instead the pattern of choices from a fixed set of actions as probability assessments change. Convexity and integrability conditions characterize maximization of expected state-dependent utility.

Suggested Citation

  • Edward J. Green & Kent Osband, 1991. "A Revealed Preference Theory for Expected Utility," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 58(4), pages 677-695.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:restud:v:58:y:1991:i:4:p:677-695.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2307/2297827
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Mark Whitmeyer, 2024. "Can One Hear the Shape of a Decision Problem?," Papers 2403.06344, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2024.
    2. Ian Crawford & Bram De Rock, 2014. "Empirical Revealed Preference," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 6(1), pages 503-524, August.
    3. Hiroki Nishimura & Efe A. Ok & John K.-H. Quah, 2017. "A Comprehensive Approach to Revealed Preference Theory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(4), pages 1239-1263, April.
    4. Demuynck, Thomas & Hjertstrand, Per, 2019. "Samuelson's Approach to Revealed Preference Theory: Some Recent Advances," Working Paper Series 1274, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    5. Thomas Demuynck & Clément Staner, 2020. "An Efficient Revealed Preference Test for the Maxmin Expected Utility Model," Working Papers ECARES 2020-31, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    6. Laurens Cherchye & Thomas Demuynck & Bram De Rock & Mikhail Freer, 2019. "Revealed Preference Analysis of Expected Utility Maximization under Prize-Probability Trade-Offs," Working Papers ECARES 2019-27, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    7. Banerjee, Priyodorshi & Das, Tanmoy, 2015. "Are Contingent Choices Consistent?," MPRA Paper 66995, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. 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.
    9. Paulo Barelli & Sourav Bhattacharya & Lucas Siga, 2022. "Full Information Equivalence in Large Elections," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(5), pages 2161-2185, September.
    10. Green, Edward J. & Park, In-Uck, 1996. "Bayes contingent plans," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 225-236, November.
    11. Cherchye, Laurens & Demuynck, Thomas & De Rock, Bram & Freer, Mikhail, 2022. "Revealed preference analysis of expected utility maximization under prize-probability trade-offs," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    12. Larry G. Epstein & Angelo Melino, 1995. "A Revealed Preference Analysis of Asset Pricing Under Recursive Utility," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 62(4), pages 597-618.
    13. Ormiston, Michael B. & E. Schlee, Edward, 1999. "Comparative statics tests between decision models under risk," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 145-166, October.

    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:oup:restud:v:58:y:1991:i:4:p:677-695.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/restud .

    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.