Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-5cf477f64f-h6p2m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-07T12:11:22.217Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - Utility and Risk Preferences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
David E. Bell
Edited by
Ward Edwards ,
Ralph F. Miles Jr.  and
Detlof von Winterfeldt
David E. Bell
Affiliation:
Harvard Business School, Harvard University
Ralph F. Miles Jr.
Affiliation:
California Institute of Technology
Detlof von Winterfeldt
Affiliation:
University of Southern California
Get access

Summary

ABSTRACT. Utility theory has been a primary method used for the analysis of decision making under uncertainty for the last 60 years. We describe the rationale and uses of the approach in the case of decisions involving money. Our focus is the question of which particular utility function should be used by a decision maker.

Introduction

Playing games of chance for money is an activity that has diverted people for at least 6 millennia, so it is reasonable to suppose that an interest in how one should think about maximizing wealth under uncertainty has existed at least as long.

The starting point for all students of decision analysis is Expected Monetary Value (EMV) (Raiffa 1968). If there are i possible courses of action under consideration, and n possible outcomes x1, …, xn, and if pij is the probability that action i leads to monetary outcome xj, then EMV suggests that one select the action i that maximizes ∑j pij xj. The justification for this criterion – and it's a good one – is that any other criterion, if used repeatedly, will assuredly (almost certainly) leave you less well off at the end. Though few people get to repeat the same gamble over and over again, EMV is still relevant in our lives because we often make decisions involving financial uncertainty, and using EMV to make them will almost certainly be the right criterion for choice.

Type
Chapter
Information
Advances in Decision Analysis
From Foundations to Applications
 , pp. 221 - 231
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arrow, K. J. (1971). Essays in the theory of risk-bearing. Chicago: Markham Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Bell, D. E. (1982). Regret in decision making under uncertainty. Operations Research, 30, 961–981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, D. E. (1985). Disappointment in decision making under uncertainty. Operations Research, 33, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, D. E. (1988a). The value of pre-decision sidebets for utility maximizers. Management Science, 34, 797–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, D. E. (1988b). One-switch utility functions and a measure of risk. Management Science, 34, 1416–1424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, D. E. (1995a). Risk, return, and utility. Management Science, 41, 23–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, D. E. (1995b). A contextual uncertainty condition for behavior under risk. Management Science, 41, 1145–1150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, D. E., and Raiffa, H. (1988). Marginal value and intrinsic risk aversion. In Bell, D. E., Raiffa, H. and Tversky, A. (Eds.) Decision Making. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernoulli, D. (1738). Specimen theoriae novae di mensura sortis. Commentarii Academiae Scientiarum Imperialis Petropolitanea, 5, 175–192. (Translated in 1954 by L. Sommer, Exposition of a new theory on the measurement of risk. Econometrica, 22, 23–36.)Google Scholar
Debreu, G. (1960). Topological methods in cardinal utility theory. In Arrow, K. J., Karlin, S., and Suppes, P. (Eds.), Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Dyer, J. S., and Sarin, R. K. (1982). Relative risk aversion. Management Science, 28, 875–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eeckhoudt, L., Gollier, C., and Schlesinger, H. (1996). Changes in background risk and risk taking behavior. Econometrica, 64, 683–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farquhar, P. H. (1984). Utility assessment methods. Management Science, 30, 1283–1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishburn, P. C. (1970). Utility Theory for Decision Making. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishburn, P. C. (1977). Mean-risk analysis with risk associated with below target returns. American Economic Review, 67, 116–126.Google Scholar
Gollier, C., and Pratt, J. W. (1996). Risk vulnerability and the tempering effect of background risk. Econometrica, 64, 1109–1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorman, W. M. (1968a). The structure of utility functions. Review of Economic Studies, 35, 367–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorman, W. M. (1968b). Conditions for additive separability. Econometrica, 36, 605–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grayson, C. J. (1960). Decisions under uncertainty: Drilling decisions by oil and gas operators. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration.Google Scholar
Keeney, R. L., and Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Kimball, M. S. (1990). Precautionary saving in the small and in the large. Econometrica, 58, 53–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimball, M. S. (1993). Standard risk aversion. Econometrica, 61, 589–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krantz, D. H., Luce, R. D., Suppes, P., and Tversky, A. (1971). Foundations of measurement. (Vol. I). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Loomes, G., and Sugden, R. (1982). Regret theory: An alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty. Economic Journal, 92, 805–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loomes, G., and Sugden, R. (1986). Disappointment and dynamic consistency in choice under uncertainty. Review of Economic Studies, 53, 271–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luce, R. D., and Raiffa, H. (1957). Games and decisions: Introduction and critical survey. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Pfanzagl, J. (1959). A general theory of measurement applications to utility. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, 6, 283–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pratt, J. W., and Zeckhauser, R. (1987). Proper risk aversion. Econometrica, 55, 143–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pratt, J. W. (1964). Risk aversion in the small and in the large. Econometrica, 32, 122–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raiffa, H. (1968). Decision analysis: Introductory lectures on choices under uncertainty. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Sarin, R. K. (1982). Strength of preference and risky choice. Operations Research 30, 982–997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlaifer, R. O. (1962). Assessment of the utility of money. Unpublished seminar notes. Harvard University, Graduate School of Business Administration.
Smidts, A. (1997). The relationship between risk attitude and strength of preference: A test of intrinsic risk attitude. Management Science, 43, 357–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neumann, J., and Morgenstern, O. (1947). Theory of games and economic behavior. 2nd ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Weber, E. U. (1988). A descriptive measure of risk. Acta Psychologica, 69, 185–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, E. U., and Milliman, R. A. (1997). Perceived risk attitudes: Relating risk perception to risky choice. Management Science, 43, 123–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, G. (1999). Anxiety and decision making with delayed resolution of uncertainty. Theory and Decision, 46, 159–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×