Abstract
This paper argues that any specific utility or disutility for gambling must be excluded from expected utility because such a theory is consequential while a pleasure or displeasure for gambling is a matter of process, not of consequences. A (dis)utility for gambling is modeled as a process utility which monotonically combines with expected utility restricted to consequences. This allows for a process (dis)utility for gambling to be revealed. As an illustration, the model shows how empirical observations in the Allais paradox can reveal a process disutility of gambling. A more general model of rational behavior combining processes and consequences is then proposed and discussed.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Allais, M. (1953), Le comportement de l'homme rationnel devant le risque: critique des postulats et axiomes de l'école américaine, Econometrica 21: 503-546.
Conlisk, J. (1993), The Utility of Gambling, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 6: 255-275.
Diecidue, E., Schmidt, U. & Wakker, P. (1999), A Theory of the Gambling Effect. Tilburg University, The Netherlands.
Donaldson, C. and Shackley, P. (1997), Does ‘Process Utility’ exist? A case study of willingness to pay for laparoscopic cholecystectomy, Social Science Medicine 44: 669-707.
Fishburn, P.C. (1980), A Simple Model for the Utility of Gambling, Psychometrika 45: 435-448.
Fishburn, P.C. (1982), The Foundations of Expected Utility. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: D. Reidel.
Fishburn, P.C. (1988) Nonlinear Preference and Utility Theory. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London.
Fishburn, P.C. (1989), Retrospective on the Utility Theory of von Neumann and Morgenstern, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2: 127-158.
Fishburn, P.C. and Wakker, P. (1995), The Invention of the Independence Condition for Preferences, Management Science 41: 1130-1144.
Frey, B.S. and Stutzer, A. (2000), Happiness, Economy and Institutions, Economic Journal, 110: 918-938.
Gärling, T., Axhausen, K. and Brydsten, M. (1996), Travel Choice and the Goal/Process Utility Distinction, Applied Cognitive Psychology 10: 65-74.
Hammond, P.J. (1988), Consequentialist Foundations of Expected Utility, Theory and Decision 25: 25-78.
Hammond, P.J. (1996), Consequentialism, Rationality and Game Theory. In Arrow, K.J., Colombatto, E., Perlman, M. and C. Schmidt, eds, The Rational Foundations of Economic Behaviour, pp. 25-42.
Harsanyi, J.C. (1993), Normative Validity and Meaning of von Neumann-Morgenstern Utilities In: Binmore K., Kirman, A. and Tani, P., eds, Frontiers of Game Theory. Cambridge & London: MIT Press, pp. 307-320.
Herstein, I.N. and Milnor, J. (1953), An Axiomatic Approach to measurable Utility, Econometrica 21: 291-297.
Keeney, R.L. and Raiffa, H. (1976), Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. New York: Wiley.
Krantz, D.H., Luce, R.D., Suppes, P., and Tversky, A. (1971), Foundations of Measurement, Vol. 1. Academic Press, New York and London.
Marschak, J. (1950), Uncertain Prospects, and Measurable Utility, Econometrica 18: 111-141.
Munier, B. (1996), Comment on 'Consequentialism, Rationality and Game Theory', In: Arrow, K.J., Colombatto, E., Perlman, M. and Schmidt, C., eds, The Rational Foundations of Economic Behaviour, pp. 43-47.
Pascal, B. (1670), Pensées. Port-Royal, Paris.
Pope, R.E. (1995), Towards a More Precise Decision Framework, A Separation of Negative Utility of Chance from Diminishing Marginal Utility and the Preference for Safety, Theory and Decision 39: 241-265.
Pope, R.E. (1998), Attractions to and Repulsions from Chance. In: W. Leinfellner and E. Köhler, eds, Game Theory, Experience, Rationality. Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 95-107.
Sen, A. (1995), Rationality and Social Choice, The American Economic Review 85: 1-24.
Sen, A. (1997), Maximization and the Act of Choice, Econometrica 65: 745-779.
Shafir and Tversky (1992), Thinking through uncertainty: Nonconsequential reasoning and choice, Cognitive Psychology 24: 449-474.
von Neumann, J. and Morgenstern, O. (1944), Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ 2nd ed. 1947, 3rd ed. 1953.
Wakker, P., and Deneffe, D. (1996), Eliciting von Neumann-Morgenstern Utilities When Probabilities Are Distorted or Unknown, Management Science 42: 1131-1150.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Le Menestrel, M. A Process Approach to the Utility for Gambling. Theory and Decision 50, 249–262 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010325930290
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010325930290