IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rank-Dependent, Subjective Expected-Utility Representations


  • Luce, R Duncan


Gambles are recursively generated from pure payoffs, events, and other gambles, and a preference order over them is assumed. Weighted average utility representations are studied that are strictly increasing in each payoff and for which the weights depend both on the events underlying the gamble and the preference ranking over the several component payoffs. Basically two results are derive: a characterization of monotonicity in terms of the weights, and an axiomatization of the representation. The latter rests on two important conditions: a decomposition of gambles into binary ones and a necessary commutativity condition on events in a particular class of binary gambles. A number of unsolved problems are cited. Copyright 1988 by Kluwer Academic Publishers

Suggested Citation

  • Luce, R Duncan, 1988. "Rank-Dependent, Subjective Expected-Utility Representations," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(3), pages 305-332, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:jrisku:v:1:y:1988:i:3:p:305-32

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Mark Montgomery & Michael Needelman, 1997. "The Welfare Effects of Toxic Contamination in Freshwater Fish," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 73(2), pages 211-223.
    2. Parsons, George R. & Jakus, Paul M. & Tomasi, Ted, 1999. "A Comparison of Welfare Estimates from Four Models for Linking Seasonal Recreational Trips to Multinomial Logit Models of Site Choice," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 143-157, September.
    3. W. Douglas Shaw & J. Scott Shonkwiler, 2000. "Brand Choice and Purchase Frequency Revisited: An Application to Recreation Behavior," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(3), pages 515-526.
    4. Jakus, Paul M. & Downing, Mark & Bevelhimer, Mark S. & Fly, J. Mark, 1997. "Do Sportfish Consumption Advisories Affect Reservoir Anglers’ Site Choice?," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(02), pages 196-204, October.
    5. Jill J. McCluskey & Gordon C. Rausser, 2001. "Estimation of Perceived Risk and Its Effect on Property Values," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(1), pages 42-55.
    6. Train, Kenneth & McFadden, Daniel & Johnson, Reed, 2000. "Discussion of Morey and Waldman's "Measurement Error in Recreation Demand Models"," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 76-81, July.
    7. 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.
    8. Paul M. Jakus & Dimitrios Dadakas & J. Mark Fly, 1998. "Fish Consumption Advisories: Incorporating Angler-Specific Knowledge, Habits, and Catch Rates in a Site Choice Model," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(5), pages 1019-1024.
    9. Morey, Edward R. & Waldman, Donald M., 1998. "Measurement Error in Recreation Demand Models: The Joint Estimation of Participation, Site Choice, and Site Characteristics," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 262-276, May.
    10. W. Kip Viscusi & William N. Evans, 1998. "Estimation Of Revealed Probabilities And Utility Functions For Product Safety Decisions," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(1), pages 28-33, February.
    11. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
    12. George R. Parsons & A. Brett Hauber, 1998. "Spatial Boundaries and Choice Set Definition in a Random Utility Model of Recreation Demand," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(1), pages 32-48.
    13. Viscusi, W Kip, 1989. "Prospective Reference Theory: Toward an Explanation of the Paradoxes," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 235-263, September.
    14. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    15. Machina, Mark J, 1987. "Choice under Uncertainty: Problems Solved and Unsolved," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 1(1), pages 121-154, Summer.
    16. W. Kip Viscusi & Wesley A. Magat & Joel Huber, 1999. "Smoking Status and Public Responses to Ambiguous Scientific Risk Evidence," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 66(2), pages 250-270, October.
    17. Heng Z. Chen & Stephen R. Cosslett, 1998. "Environmental Quality Preference and Benefit Estimation in Multinomial Probit Models: A Simulation Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(3), pages 512-520.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. Nakamura Y., 1996. "Rank dependent utility for arbitrary consequnce spaces," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 54-54, February.
    2. Border, K.C. & Segal, U., 1997. "Coherent Odds and Subjective Probability," UWO Department of Economics Working Papers 9717, University of Western Ontario, Department of Economics.
    3. Camerer, Colin & Weber, Martin, 1992. "Recent Developments in Modeling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 325-370, October.
    4. Mikhail Sokolov, 2011. "Interval scalability of rank-dependent utility," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 70(3), pages 255-282, March.
    5. Wakker, Peter, 1996. "The sure-thing principle and the comonotonic sure-thing principle: An axiomatic analysis," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 213-227.
    6. Marc Willinger, 1990. "La rénovation des fondements de l'utilité et du risque," Revue Économique, Programme National Persée, vol. 41(1), pages 5-48.
    7. Wakker, Peter P. & Zank, Horst, 1999. "A unified derivation of classical subjective expected utility models through cardinal utility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 1-19, August.

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    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:kap:jrisku:v:1:y:1988:i:3:p:305-32. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla) or (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.