Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A note on deriving rank-dependent utility using additive joint receipts

  • Published:
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Luce and Fishburn (1991) derived a general rank-dependent utility model using an operation ⊕ of joint receipt. Their argument rested on an empirically supported property (now) calledsegregation and on the assumption that utility is additive over ⊕. This note generalizes that conclusion to the case where utility need not be additive over ⊕, but rather is of a more general form, which they derived but did not use in their article. Tversky and Kahneman (1992), conjecturing that the joint receipt of two sums of money is simply their sum, criticized that original model because ⊕=+ together with additive utility implies the unacceptable conclusion that the utility of money is proportional to money. In the present generalized theory, if ⊕=+, utility is a negative exponential function of money rather than proportional. Similar results hold for losses. The case of mixed gains and losses is less well understood.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Birnbaum, M. H. (1992). “Violations of Monotonicity and Contextual Effects in Choice-based Certainty Equivalents,”Psychological Science 3, 310–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, Y., and R. D. Luce, (in press). “Tests of Hypotheses about Certainty Equivalents and Joint Receipt of Gambles.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.

  • Cho, Y., R. D. Luce and D. von Winterfeldt. (1994). “Tests of Assumptions about the Joint Receipt of Gambles in Rank-and Sign-Dependent Utility Theory,”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 20, 931–943.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. C., and R. D. Luce. (1995). “Joint Receipt and Thaler's Hedonic Editing Rule,”Mathematical Social Sciences 29, 33–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky. (1979). “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,”Econometrica 47, 263–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linville, P. W., and G. W. Fischer. (1991). “Preferences for Separating or Combining Events,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60, 5–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. D. (1991). “Rank- and Sign-Dependent Linear Utility Models for Binary Gambles,”Journal of Economic Theory 53, 75–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. D. (1992). “Singular Points in Generalized Concatenation Structures that Otherwise Are Homoge-neous,”Mathematical Social Sciences 24, 79–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. D. (1995). “Joint Receipt and Certainty Equivalents of Gambles,”Journal of Mathematical Psychology 39, 73–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. D., and P. C. Fishburn. (1991). “Rank-and Sign-Dependent Linear Utility Models for Finite FirstOrder Gambles,”Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 4, 29–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. D., and L. Narens. (1985). “Classification of Concatenation Measurement Structures According to Scale Type,”Journal of Mathematical Psychology 29, 1–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mellers, B., R. Weiss, and M. H. Birnbaum. (1992). “Violation of Dominance in Pricing Judgments,“Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5, 73–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quiggin, J. (1993).Generalized Expected Utility Theory: The Rank-Dependent Model. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., and S. Lichtenstein. (1968). “Importance of Variance Preferences in Gambling Decisions,”Journal of Experimental Psychology 78, 646–654.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. H. (1985). “Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice,”Marketing Science 4, 199–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. H., and E. Johnson. (1990). “Gambling with the House Money or Trying to Break Even: The Effects of Prior Outcomes on Risky Choice,”Management Science 36, 643–660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. (1992). “Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty,”Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5, 204–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Winterfeldt, D., N.-K. Chung, R. D. Luce, and Y. Cho. (submitted). “Tests of Consequence Monotonicity in Decision Making under Uncertainty,”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition.

  • Wakker, P. P., and A. Tversky. (1993). “An Axiomatization of Cumulative Prospect Theory,”Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 7, 147–176.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Mathematical Behavioral Sciences, University of California, 92717, Irvine, California

    R. Duncan Luce

  2. AT&T Bell Laboratories, 07974-0636, Murray Hill, NJ

    Peter C. Fishburn

Authors
  1. R. Duncan Luce
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter C. Fishburn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Luce, R.D., Fishburn, P.C. A note on deriving rank-dependent utility using additive joint receipts. J Risk Uncertainty 11, 5–16 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01132728

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01132728

Key words

Search

Navigation