Abstract
This article compares classical expected utility (EU) with the more general rank-dependent utility (RDU) models. The difference between the independence condition for preferences of EU and its comonotonic generalization in RDU provides the exact demarcation between EU and rank-dependent models. Other axiomatic differences are not essential. An experimental design is described that tests this difference between independence and comonotonic independence in its most basic form and is robust against violations of other assumptions that may confound the results, in particular the reduction principle and transitivity. It is well known that in the classical counterexamples to EU, comonotonic independence performs better than full-force independence. For our more general choice pairs, however, we find that comonotonic independence does not perform better. This is contrary to our prior expectation and suggests that rank-dependent models, in full generality, do not provide a descriptive improvement over EU. For rank-dependent models to have a future, submodels and choice situations need to be identified for which rank-dependence does contribute descriptively.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Battalio, R.C., J.H. Kagel, and K. Jiranyakul. (1990). “Testing between Alternative Models of Choice under Uncertainty: Some Initial Results,”Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 3, 25–50.
Bernasconi, M., and G. Loomes. (1992). “Failures of the Reduction Principle in an Ellsberg-Type Problem,”Theory and Decision 32, 77–100.
Birnbaum, M.H. (1974). “The Nonadditivity of Personality Impressions,”Journal of Experimental Psychology 102, 543–561.
Birnbaum, M.H., G. Coffey, B.A. Mellers, and R. Weiss (1992). “Utility Measurement: Configural-Weight Theory and the Judge's Point of View,”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 18, 331–346.
Camerer, C.F. (1989). “An Experimental Test of Several Generalized Utility Theories,”Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2, 61–104.
Camerer, C.F. (1992). “Recent Tests of Generalizations of Expected Utility Theory.” In W. Edwards (ed.),Utility Theories: Measurement and Applications. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 207–251.
Camerer, C.F., and T.-H. Ho. (1994). “Violations of the Betweenness Axiom and Nonlinearity in Probability,”Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 8, 167–196.
Camerer, C.F., and M. Weber. (1992). “Recent Developments in Modelling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity.”Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5, 325–370.
Chew, S.H., and P.P. Wakker. (1993). “Generalizing Choquet Expected Utility by Weakening Savage's Sure-Thing Principle.” University of California, Irvine Research Unit in Mathematical Behavioral Sciences.
Cohen, M., and J.Y. Jaffray. (1988). “Certainty Effect versus Probability Distortion: An Experimental Analysis of Decision Making under Risk,”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 14, 554–560.
Conlisk, J. (1989). “Three Variants on the Allais Example,”American Economic Review 79, 392–407.
Edwards, W. (1962). “Subjective Probabilities Inferred from Decisions,”Psychological Review 69, 109–135.
Erev, I., G. Bornstein, and T.S. Wallsten. (1993). “The Negative Effect of Probability Assessments on Decision Quality,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 55, 78–94.
Fishburn, P.C., and P.P. Wakker. (1992). “The Invention of the Independence Condition,”Management Science, forthcoming.
Harless, D.W. (1992). “Predictions about Unit Triangle Indifference Curves inside the Unit Triangle: A Test of Competing Decision Theories,”Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, forthcoming.
Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky. (1979). “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,”Econometrica 47, 263–291.
Karni, E., and Z. Safra. (1990). “Rank-Dependent Probabilities,”Economic Journal 100, 487–495.
Keller, L.R. (1985). “Testing of the ‘Reduction of Compound Alternatives’ Principle,”Omega 13, 349–358.
Luce, R.D., and P.C. Fishburn. (1991). “Rank- and Sign-Dependent Linear Utility Models for Finite First-Order Gambles,”Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 4, 29–59.
Machina, M.J. (1989). “Dynamic Consistency and Non-Expected Utility Models of Choice under Uncertainty,”Journal of Economic Literature 27, 1622–1688.
MacCrimmon, K.R., and S. Larsson. (1979). “Utility Theory: Axioms versus ‘Paradoxes’.” In M. Allais and O. Hagen (eds.),Expected Utility Hypotheses and the Allais Paradox. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 27–145.
Nakamura, Y. (1992). “A Generalization of Subjective Expected Utility without Transitivity and Additivity.” Paper presented at Sixth FUR Conference, Cachan, France.
Quiggin, J. (1982). “A Theory of Anticipated Utility,”Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization 3, 323–343.
Savage, L.J. (1954).The Foundations of Statistics. New York: Wiley. (Second edition: 1972, New York: Dover).
Slovic, P., and A. Tversky. (1974). “Who Accepts Savage's Axiom?”Behavioral Science 19, 368–373.
Starmer, C. (1992). “Testing New Theories of Choice under Uncertainty Using the Common Consequence Effect,”Review of Economic Studies 59, 813–830.
Starmer, C., and R. Sugden. (1989). “Violations of the Independence Axiom in Common Ratio Problems: An Experimental Test of Some Competing Hypotheses,”Annals of Operations Research 19, 79–101.
Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. (1992). “Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty,”Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5, 297–323.
von Neumann, J., and O. Morgenstern. (1944, 1947, 1953).Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Wakker, P.P. (1994a). “Separating Marginal Utility and Probabilistic Risk Aversion,”Theory and Decision, 1–44.
Wakker, P.P. (1994b). “Independence and Comonotonic Independence: An Axiomatic Analysis.” Medical Decision Making Unit, University of Leiden, The Netherlands.
Weber, E.U. (1993). “From Subjective Probabilities to Decision Weights: The Effects of Asymmetric Loss Functions on the Evaluation of Uncertain Outcomes and Events,”Psychological Bulletin, in press.
Weber, E.U., C.J. Anderson, and M.H. Birnbaum. (1992). “A Theory of Perceived Risk and Attractiveness,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 52, 492–523.
Wu, G. (1993). “Editing and Prospect Theory: Ordinal Independence and Outcome Independence.” Working paper, Harvard Business School, Boston, Mass.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wakker, P., Erev, I. & Weber, E.U. Comonotonic independence: The critical test between classical and rank-dependent utility theories. J Risk Uncertainty 9, 195–230 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01064200
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01064200