Abstract
This paper is motivated by the search for one cardinal utility for decisions under risk, welfare evaluations, and other contexts. This cardinal utility should have meaningprior to risk, with risk depending on cardinal utility, not the other way around. The rank-dependent utility model can reconcile such a view on utility with the position that risk attitude consists of more than marginal utility, by providing a separate risk component: a ‘probabilistic risk attitude’ towards probability mixtures of lotteries, modeled through a transformation for cumulative probabilities. While this separation of risk attitude into two independent components is the characteristic feature of rank-dependent utility, it had not yet been axiomatized. Doing that is the purpose of this paper. Therefore, in the second part, the paper extends Yaari's axiomatization to nonlinear utility, and provides separate axiomatizations for increasing/decreasing marginal utility and for optimistic/pessimistic probability transformations. This is generalized to interpersonal comparability. It is also shown that two elementary and often-discussed properties — quasi-convexity (‘aversion’) of preferences with respect to probability mixtures, and convexity (‘pessimism’) of the probability transformation — are equivalent.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allais, M.: 1953, ‘Fondements d'une Théorie Positive des Choix Comportant un Risque et Critique des Postulats et Axiomes de l'Ecole Américaine’,Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique 40, Econométrie, 257–332. Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. Translated into English, with additions, as ‘The Foundations of a Positive Theory of Choice Involving Risk and a Criticism of the Postulates and Axioms of the American School’,in Allais, M. and Hagen, O. (Eds.): 1979,Expected Utility Hypotheses and the Allais Paradox, Reidel, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 27–145.
Allais, M.: 1979, ‘The So-Called Allais Paradox and Rational Decisions under Uncertainty’,In Allais, M. and Hagen, O. (Eds.): 1979,Expected Utility Hypotheses and the Allais Paradox, Reidel, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 437–681.
Arrow, K.J.: 1951, ‘Alternative Approaches to the Theory of Choice in Risk-Taking Situations’,Econometrica 19, 404–437.
Barron, F.H., von Winterfeldt, D. and Fischer, G.W.: 1984, ‘Empirical and Theoretical Relationships between Value and Utility Functions’,Acta Psychologica 56, 233–244.
Bernard, G.: 1974, ‘On Utility Functions’,Theory and Decision 5, 205–242.
Bernoulli, D.: 1738, ‘Specimen Theoria Novae de Mensura Sortis’,Commentarii Academiae Scientiarum Imperialis Petropolitanae 5, 175–192. Translated into English by Sommer, L.: 1954, ‘Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk’,Econometrica 12, 23–36; or in Page, A.N. (Ed.): 1968,Utility Theory: A Book of Readings, Wiley, New York, Ch. 11.
Birnbaum, M.H. and Sutton, S.E.: 1992, ‘Scale Convergence and Utility Measurement’,Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 52, 183–215.
Camerer, C.F.: 1989, ‘An Experimental Test of Several Generalized Utility Theories’,Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2, 61–104.
Chateauneuf, A.: 1988, ‘Uncertainty Aversion and Risk Aversion in Models with Nonadditive Probabilities’,In Munier, B.R. (Ed.): 1988,Risk, Decision and Rationality, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 615–629.
Chateauneuf, A.: 1990, ‘On the Use of Comonotonicity in the Axiomatization of EURDP Theory for Arbitrary Consequences’, CERMSEM, University of Paris I; Abstract presented at Fifth International Conference on the Foundations and Applications of Utility, Risk and Decision Theory (FUR-90).
Chateauneuf, A. and Cohen, M.: 1990, ‘Risk Seeking with Diminishing Marginal Utility in a Non-Expected Utility Model’, CERMSEM, University of Paris I.
Chew, S.H.: 1989, ‘An Axiomatic Generalization of the Quasilinear Mean and Gini Mean with Application to Decision Theory’, Department of Economics, University of California, Irvine, USA.
Chew, S.H. and Epstein, L.G.: 1989, ‘A Unifying Approach to Axiomatic Non-Expected Utility Theories’,Journal of Economic Theory 49, 207–240.
Chew, S.H., Epstein, L.G. and Wakker, P.P.: 1993, ‘A Unifying Approach to Axiomatic Non-Expected Utility Theories: Corrigenda’,Journal of Economic Theory 59, 183–188.
Chew, S.H. and Karni, E.: 1991, ‘Choquet Expected Utility with a Finite State Space’,Journal of Economic Theory, forthcoming.
Chew, S.H., Karni, E. and Safra, Z.: 1987, ‘Risk Aversion in the Theory of Expected Utility with Rank Dependent Probabilities’,Journal of Economic Theory 42, 370–381.
Chew, S.H. and Wakker, P.P.: 1991, ‘Generalizing Choquet Expected Utility by Weakening Savage's Sure-Thing Principle’, University of California, Irvine Research Unit in Mathematical Behavioral Sciences, MBS 91-16, Irvine, CA, USA.
Cohen, M. and Jaffray, J.Y.: 1988, ‘Preponderence of the Certainty Effect over Probability Distortion in Decision Making under Risk’,In Munier, B.R. (Ed.): 1988,Risk, Decision and Rationality, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 173–187.
Cramer, G.: 1728, Letter from Cramer to Nicholas Bernoulli. Translated into English by Louise Sommer in Bernoulli, Daniel (1954), ‘Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk’,Econometrica 22, 23–36.
Crouzeix, J.-P. and Lindberg, P.O.: 1986, ‘Additively Decomposed Quasiconvex Functions’,Mathematical Programming 35, 42–57.
Debreu, G. and Koopmans, T.C.: 1982, ‘Additively Decomposed Quasiconvex Functions’,Mathematical Programming 24, 1–38.
Dyer, J.S. and Sarin, R.K.: 1982, ‘Relative Risk Aversion’,Management Science 28, 875–886.
Edwards, W.: 1962, ‘Subjective Probabilities Inferred from Decisions’,Psychological Review 69, 109–135.
Farquhar, P. and Keller, R.L.: 1989, ‘Preference Intensity Measurement’,Annals of Operations Research 19, 205–217.
Fishburn, P.C.: 1978, ‘On Handa's ‘New Theory of Cardinal Utility’ and the Maximization of Expected Return’,Journal of Political Economy 86, 321–324.
Fishburn, P.C.: 1989, ‘Retrospective on the Utility Theory of von Neumann and Morgenstern’,Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2, 127–158.
Fisher, I.: 1927, ‘A Statistical Method for Measuring “Marginal Utility” and Testing the Justice of a Progressive Income Tax’,In Hollander, J.H. (Ed.): 1927Economic Essays Contributed in Honor of John Bates Clark, Macmillan, New York, pp. 157–193.
Friedman, M. and Savage, L.J.: 1948, ‘The Utility Analysis of Choices Involving Risk’,Journal of Political Economy 56, 279–304.
Gilboa, I. and Schmeidler, D.: 1989, ‘Maxmin Expected Utility with a Non-Unique Prior’,Journal of Mathematical Economics 18, 141–153.
Green, J. and Jullien, B.: 1988, ‘Ordinal Independence in Non-Linear Utility Theory’,Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1, 355–387; (‘Erratum’,2 (1989), 119.)
Gul, F.: 1992, ‘Savage's Theorem with a Finite Number of States’,Journal of Economic Theory 57, 99–110.
Handa, J.: 1977, ‘Risk, Probabilities, and a New Theory of Cardinal Utility’,Journal of Political Economy 85, 97–122.
Hardy, G.H., Littlewood, J.E. and Pólya, G.: 1934,Inequalities, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (second edition 1952, reprinted 1978).
Harsanyi, J.C.: 1955, ‘Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility’,Journal of Political Economy 63, 309–321.
Hilton, R.W.: 1988, ‘Risk Attitude under Two Alternative Theories of Choice under Risk’,Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization 9, 119–136.
Jaffray, J.Y.: 1989, ‘Linear Utility Theory for Belief Functions’,Operations Research Letters 8, 107–112.
Jevons, W.S.: 1911,The Theory of Political Economy, MacMillan, London.
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A.: 1979, ‘Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk’,Econometrica 47, 263–291.
Krantz, D.H., Luce, R.D., Suppes, P., and Tversky, A.: 1971,Foundations of Measurement, Vol. I.: Additive and Polynomial Representations, Academic Press, New York.
Krelle, W.: 1968,Präferenz- und Entscheidungstheorie, Mohr, Tübingen.
Krzysztofowicz, R.: 1983, ‘Strength of Preferences and Risk Attitude in Utility Measurement’,Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance 31, 88–113.
Krzysztofowicz, R. and Koch, J.B.: 1989, ‘Estimation of Cardinal Utility Based on a Nonlinear Theory’,Annals of Operations Research 19, 181–204.
Lopes, L.L.: 1987, ‘Between Hope and Fear: The Psychology of Risk’,Advances in Experimental Psychology 20, 255–295.
Luce, R.D.: 1988, ‘Rank-Dependent, Subjective Expected-Utility Representations’,Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1, 305–332.
Luce, R.D. and Fishburn, P.C.: 1991, ‘Rank- and Sign-Dependent Linear Utility Models for Finite First-Order Gambles’,Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 4, 29–59.
Luce, R.D. and Raiffa, H.: 1957,Games and Decisions, Wiley, New York.
McCord, M.R. and de Neufville, R.: 1983, ‘Fundamental Deficiency of Expected Utility Decision Analysis’,In French, S., Hartley, R., Thomas, L.C., and White, D.J. (Eds.): 1983,Multi-Objective Decision Making, Academic Press, New York, pp. 279–305.
Marshall, A.: 1948,Principles of Economics, 8th Edition, MacMillan, New York.
Munier B.R. and Abdellaoui, M.: 1991, ‘Expected Utility Violations: An Appropriate and Intercultural Experiment’,In Chikàn, A. (Ed.): 1991,New Developments in Risk and Utility Analysis, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (forthcoming).
Nakamura, Y.: 1992, ‘Multi-Symmetric Structures and Non-Expected Utility’,Journal of Mathematical Psychology 36, 375–395.
Pfanzagl, J.: 1968,Theory of Measurement, Physica-Verlag, Vienna.
Preston, M.G. and Baratta, P.: 1948, ‘An Experimental Study of the Auction Value of an Uncertain Outcome’,American Journal of Psychology 61, 183–193.
Quiggin, J.: 1982, ‘A Theory of Anticipated Utility’,Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization 3, 323–343.
Quiggin, J. and Wakker, P.P.: 1992, ‘The Axiomatic Basis of Anticipated Utility; A Clarification’, CenTER Discussion paper No. 9203, University of Brabant, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Ramsey, F.P.: 1931, ‘Truth and Probability’.In Ramsey, F.P.: 1931, The Foundations of Mathematics and other Logical Essays, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, pp. 156–198. Reprinted in Kyburg, H.E. and Smokler, H.E. (Eds.): 1964,Studies in Subjective Probability, Wiley, New York, pp. 61–92.
Savage, L.J.: 1954,The Foundations of Statistics, Wiley, New York (second edition 1972, Dover, New York).
Schmeidler, D.: 1989, ‘Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity,Econometrica 57, 571–587.
Segal, U.: 1987, ‘The Ellsberg Paradox and Risk Aversion: An Anticipated Utility Approach’,International Economic Review 28, 175–202.
Segal, U.: 1989, ‘Anticipated Utility: A Measure Representation Approach’,Annals of Operations Research 19, 359–373.
Segal, U.: 1990, ‘Two-Stage Lotteries without the Reduction Axiom’,Econometrica 58, 349–377.
Segal, U.: 1993, ‘The Measure Representation: A Correction’,Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 6, 99–107.
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D.: 1992, ‘Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty’,Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5, 297–323.
von Neumann, J. and Morgenstern, O.: 1944, 1947, 1953,Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
von Winterfeldt, D. and Edwards, W.: 1986,Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Wakker, P.P.: 1984, ‘Cardinal Coordinate Independence for Expected Utility’,Journal of Mathematical Psychology 28, 110–117.
Wakker, P.P.: 1986, ‘Representations of Choice Situations’. Ph.D. Disseration, University of Brabant, Department of Economics, The Netherlands.
Wakker, P.P.: 1987, ‘Nonadditive Probabilities and Derived Strengths of Preferences’, Internal report 87 MA 03, University of Nijmegen, Department of Mathematical Psychology, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Wakker, P.P.: 1988, ‘The Algebraic Versus the Topological Approach to Additive Representations’,Journal of Mathematical Psychology 32, 421–435.
Wakker, P.P.: 1989a,Additive Representations of Preferences, A New Foundation of Decision Analysis, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Wakker, P.P.: 1989b, ‘Transforming Probabilities without Violating Stochastic Dominance’,In Roskam, E.E.Ch.I. (Ed.): 1989,Mathematical Psychology in Progress, Springer, Berlin, pp. 29–47.
Wakker, P.P.: 1990a, ‘Under Stochastic Dominance Choquet-Expected Utility and Anticipated Utility are Identical’,Theory and Decision 29, 119–132.
Wakker, P.P.: 1990b, ‘Characterizing Optimism and Pessimism Directly through Comonotonicity’,Journal of Economic Theory 52, 453–463.
Wakker, P.P.: 1991a, ‘Additive Representations on Rank-Ordered Sets. I. The Algebraic Approach’,Journal of Mathematical Psychology 35, 501–531.
Wakker, P.P.: 1991b, ‘Additive Representations of Preferences, A New Foundation of Decision Analysis; The Algebraic Approach’,In Doignon, J.P. and Falmagne, J.C. (Eds.): 1991,Mathematical Psychology: Current Developments, Springer, Berlin, pp. 71–87.
Wakker, P.P.: 1993a, ‘Additive Representations on Rank-Ordered Sets. II. The Topological Approach’,Journal of Mathematical Economics 22, 1–26.
Wakker, P.P.: 1993b, ‘Counterexamples to Segal's Measure Representation Theorem’,Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 6, 91–98.
Wakker, P.P.: 1993c, ‘Unbounded Utility for Savage's ‘Foundations of Statistics’, and other Models’,Mathematics of Operations Research 18, 446–485.
Wakker, P.P.: 1993d, ‘Savage's Axioms Usually Imply Violation of Strict Stochastic Dominance’,The Review of Economic Studies 60, 487–493.
Wakker, P.P. and Tversky, A.: 1991, ‘An Axiomatization of Cumulative Prospect Theory’,Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, forthcoming.
Yaari, M.E.: 1977, ‘A Note on Separability and Quasi-Concavity’,Econometrica 45, 1183–1186.
Yaari, M.E.: 1987a, ‘The Dual Theory of Choice under Risk’,Econometrica 55, 95–115.
Yaari, M.E.: 1987b, ‘Univariate and Multivatiate Comparisons of Risk Aversion: a New Approach’,In Heller, W.P., Starr, R.M. and Starrett, D.A. (Eds.): 1987,Uncertainty, Information and Communication: Essays in Honor of Kenneth J. Arrow, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Vol. III, pp. 173–187.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wakker, P. Separating marginal utility and probabilistic risk aversion. Theor Decis 36, 1–44 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01075296
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01075296