IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/bejtec/v8y2008i1n12.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Revisiting Independence and Stochastic Dominance for Compound Lotteries

Author

Listed:
  • Zimper Alexander

    (University of Johannesburg, zimper@bigfoot.com)

Abstract

We establish mathematical equivalence between independence of irrelevant alternatives and monotonicity with respect to first order stochastic dominance. This formal equivalence result between the two principles is obtained under two key conditions. Firstly, for all natural numbers m, each principle is defined on the domain of compound lotteries with compoundness level m. Secondly, the standard concept of reduction of compound lotteries applies.

Suggested Citation

  • Zimper Alexander, 2008. "Revisiting Independence and Stochastic Dominance for Compound Lotteries," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:bejtec:v:8:y:2008:i:1:n:12
    DOI: 10.2202/1935-1704.1444
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2202/1935-1704.1444
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2202/1935-1704.1444?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chris Starmer, 2000. "Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 332-382, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Baccelli, Jean & Hartmann, Lorenz, 2023. "The Sure-Thing Principle," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Arnaud Lefranc & Nicolas Pistolesi & Alain Trannoy, 2006. "Equality of opportunity: Definitions and testable conditions, with an application to income in France," Working Papers 53, ECINEQ, Society for the Study of Economic Inequality.
    2. Filippin, Antonio & Crosetto, Paolo, 2014. "A Reconsideration of Gender Differences in Risk Attitudes," IZA Discussion Papers 8184, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. John Hey & Andrea Morone & Ulrich Schmidt, 2009. "Noise and bias in eliciting preferences," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 213-235, December.
    4. McCarthy, David & Mikkola, Kalle & Thomas, Teruji, 2020. "Utilitarianism with and without expected utility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 77-113.
    5. Morone, Andrea, 2010. "On price data elicitation: A laboratory investigation," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 540-545, October.
    6. Gebhard Geiger, 2012. "Multi-attribute non-expected utility," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 196(1), pages 263-292, July.
    7. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. & Botzen, W.J.W., 2015. "Monetary valuation of the social cost of CO2 emissions: A critical survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 33-46.
    8. Peter John Robinson & W. J. Wouter Botzen, 2022. "Setting descriptive norm nudges to promote demand for insurance against increasing climate change risk," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 47(1), pages 27-49, January.
    9. Laetitia Placido & Olivier L'Haridon, 2008. "An allais paradox for generalized expected utility theories?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(19), pages 1-6.
    10. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.
    11. Matthieu De Lapparent & Moshe Ben-Akiva, 2014. "Risk Aversion in Travel Mode Choice with Rank-Dependent Utility," Mathematical Population Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(4), pages 189-204, December.
    12. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & l’Haridon, Olivier, 2013. "Prospect theory in the health domain: A quantitative assessment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1057-1065.
    13. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2024. "A puzzle of roulette gambling," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 69(2), pages 219-234, October.
    14. Pinto-Prades, Jose Luis & Loomes, Graham & Brey, Raul, 2009. "Trying to estimate a monetary value for the QALY," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 553-562, May.
    15. Karel ŠRÉDL & Alexandr SOUKUP, 2011. "Consumer's behaviour on food markets," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 57(3), pages 140-144.
    16. Gwenola Trotin, 2012. "Solving the Yitzhaki Paradox," AMSE Working Papers 1238, Aix-Marseille School of Economics, France.
    17. Raj Chetty, 2006. "A New Method of Estimating Risk Aversion," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(5), pages 1821-1834, December.
    18. David Masclet & Youenn Lohéac & Laurent Denant-Boèmont & Nathalie Colombier, 2008. "Une étude expérimentale du degré individuel et collectif d’aversion au risque," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 185(4), pages 89-101.
    19. Nigist Haile, Haile & Oskam, A. & Tassew, Woldehanna & Peerlings, J., 2009. "Decision-Making under Risk: Evidence from Northern Ethiopia," Ethiopian Journal of Economics, Ethiopian Economics Association, vol. 18(2), pages 132-132, August.
    20. Glenn W. Harrison & Morten I. Lau & Hong Il Yoo, 2020. "Risk Attitudes, Sample Selection, and Attrition in a Longitudinal Field Experiment," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 102(3), pages 552-568, July.

    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:bpj:bejtec:v:8:y:2008:i:1:n:12. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyterbrill.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.