David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Theory and Decision 55 (1):45-57 (2003)
The possibility to interpret expected and nonexpected utility theories in purely probabilistic terms has been recently investigated. Such interpretation proposes as guideline for the Decision Maker the comparison of random variables through their probability to outperform a stochastic benchmark. We apply this type of analysis to the model of Becker and Sarin, showing that their utility functional may be seen as the probability that an opportune random variable, depending on the one to be evaluated, does not outperform a non-random benchmark. Further, the consequent choice criterion is equivalent to a sort of probability of ruin. Possible interpretations and financial examples are discussed
|Keywords||benchmarking choice criteria lottery-dependent utility nonexpected utility theory probability of ruin|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Ulrich Schmidt (2001). Lottery Dependent Utility: A Reexamination. Theory and Decision 50 (1):35-58.
Barry Sopher & J. Mattison Narramore (2000). Stochastic Choice and Consistency in Decision Making Under Risk: An Experimental Study. Theory and Decision 48 (4):323-349.
Peter C. Fishburn (1974). Convex Stochastic Dominance with Finite Consequence Sets. Theory and Decision 5 (2):119-137.
Teddy Seidenfeld, Mark Schervish & Joseph Kadane, When Coherent Preferences May Not Preserve Indifference Between Equivalent Random Variables: A Price for Unbounded Utilities.
Stephen A. Clark (2000). Revealed Preference and Expected Utility. Theory and Decision 49 (2):159-174.
Peter Wakker (1990). Under Stochastic Dominance Choquet-Expected Utility and Anticipated Utility Are Identical. Theory and Decision 29 (2):119-132.
Neil Stewart, Nick Chater, Henry P. Stott & Stian Reimers (2003). Prospect Relativity: How Choice Options Influence Decision Under Risk. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 132 (1):23.
Teddy Seidenfeld, Mark J. Schervish & Joseph B. Kadane (2010). Coherent Choice Functions Under Uncertainty. Synthese 172 (1):157 - 176.
Stephan Hartmann, Claus Beisbart & Luc Bovens (2005). A Utilitarian Assessment of Alternative Decision Rules in the Council of Ministers. European Union Politics 6 (4):395-419.
Teddy Seidenfeld, Mark J. Schervish & Joseph B. Kadane, Preference for Equivalent Random Variables: A Price for Unbounded Utilities.
Ivan Moscati & Paola Tubaro, Random Behavior and the as-If Defense of Rational Choice Theory in Demand Experiments.
Wesley Cooper (2008). Decision-Value Utilitarianism. Polish Journal of Philosophy 2 (2):39-50.
Moez Abouda & Alain Chateauneuf (2002). Positivity of Bid-Ask Spreads and Symmetrical Monotone Risk Aversion. Theory and Decision 52 (2):149-170.
Alfred Müller & Marco Scarsini (2002). Even Risk-Averters May Love Risk. Theory and Decision 52 (1):81-99.
George Wu (1999). Anxiety and Decision Making with Delayed Resolution of Uncertainty. Theory and Decision 46 (2):159-199.
Added to index2010-09-02
Total downloads3 ( #345,782 of 1,692,620 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #181,402 of 1,692,620 )
How can I increase my downloads?