IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/uwapdp/232270.html

Expected Utility Theory: Rest in Peace?

Author

Listed:
  • Hertzler, G.L.

Abstract

From all reports, expected utility theory is dead. The reports are greatly exaggerated. This study makes two modifications which revive expected utility theory. Rather than directly modelling risk preferences by a von Neumann-Morgenstern utility function of wealth, risk preferences and the expected utility of wealth are derived from consumption and investment decisions over time. Rather than using future wealth as the reference point for evaluation risk preferences, current wealth is used instead. The revived theory is both normative and descriptive. It specifies how rational people ought to make decisions under risk and explains the major empirical findings about how people actually make decisions. For example the Allais Paradox and its variations, preference reversals and framing effects all result from rational decisions by uniformly risk-averse people. Moreover, apparently risk-seeking behaviour can result from risk-averse people with low rates of time preference taking risks to save for the future. The revived theory also shows why eliciting certainty equivalents cannot measure peoples' risk preferences but leads to new procedures for measuring both time and risk preferences. (JEL D81, D91).

Suggested Citation

  • Hertzler, G.L., 1995. "Expected Utility Theory: Rest in Peace?," Discussion Papers 232270, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:uwapdp:232270
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.232270
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/232270/files/uwa-discussionpapers-002-095.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.232270?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hertzler, Greg, 1991. "Dynamic Decisions Under Risk: Applications of Ito Stochastic Control in Agriculture," 1991 Conference (35th), February 11-14, 1991, Armidale, Australia 145902, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    2. Camerer, Colin F & Ho, Teck-Hua, 1994. "Violations of the Betweenness Axiom and Nonlinearity in Probability," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 167-196, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Hertzler, Greg, 1995. "Expected Utility Theory: Rest in Peace?," 1995 Conference (39th), February 14-16, 1995, Perth, Australia 148802, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    2. Bradley, Ian, 2003. "The representative bettor, bet size, and prospect theory," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 78(3), pages 409-413, March.
    3. Brausmann, Alexandra & Bretschger, Lucas, 2018. "Economic development on a finite planet with stochastic soil degradation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 1-19.
    4. Calum G. Turvey, 2010. "Biography," Agricultural Finance Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 70(1), pages 5-20, May.
    5. Diecidue, Enrico & Wakker, Peter P, 2001. "On the Intuition of Rank-Dependent Utility," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 281-298, November.
    6. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.
    7. Kaivanto, Kim, 2008. "Alternation Bias and the Parameterization of Cumulative Prospect Theory," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, pages 91-107.
    8. Hamza Bahaji, 2011. "Incentives from stock option grants: a behavioral approach," Post-Print halshs-00681607, HAL.
    9. Che-Yuan Liang, 2017. "Optimal inequality behind the veil of ignorance," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 83(3), pages 431-455, October.
    10. Xue Dong He & Sang Hu & Jan Obłój & Xun Yu Zhou, 2017. "Technical Note—Path-Dependent and Randomized Strategies in Barberis’ Casino Gambling Model," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 65(1), pages 97-103, February.
    11. Phillips Peter J. & Pohl Gabriela, 2018. "The Deferral of Attacks: SP/A Theory as a Model of Terrorist Choice when Losses Are Inevitable," Open Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 71-85, February.
    12. Kerim Keskin, 2016. "Inverse S-shaped probability weighting functions in first-price sealed-bid auctions," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 20(1), pages 57-67, March.
    13. Ariane Charpin, 2018. "Tests des modèles de décision en situation de risque. Le cas des parieurs hippiques en France," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 69(5), pages 779-803.
    14. Dillenberger, David & Erol, Selman, 2013. "Negative certainty independence without betweenness," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 120(3), pages 596-598.
    15. Keskin, Kerim, 2018. "Cumulative prospect theory preferences in rent-seeking contests," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 85-91.
    16. Dennery, Charles & Direr, Alexis, 2014. "Optimal lottery," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 15-23.
    17. Z. Bar‐Shira & R.E. Just & D. Zilberman, 1997. "Estimation of farmers' risk attitude: an econometric approach," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 17(2-3), pages 211-222, December.
    18. Kemal Ozbek, 2024. "Expected utility, independence, and continuity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 97(1), pages 1-22, August.
    19. Jean-Pascal Gayant, 1995. "Généralisation de l'espérance d'utilité en univers risqué : représentation et estimation," Revue Économique, Programme National Persée, vol. 46(4), pages 1047-1061.
    20. Drichoutis, Andreas & Lusk, Jayson, 2012. "Risk preference elicitation without the confounding effect of probability weighting," MPRA Paper 37762, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ags:uwapdp:232270. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aruwaau.html .

    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.