Where Does Subjective Expected Utility Fail Descriptively?

R Duncan Luce

Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1992, vol. 5, issue 1, 5-27

Abstract: Subjective expected utility (SEU) rests on and implies four tenets of rational preferences; transitivity, monotonicity of consequences, independence of a common consequence, and accounting equivalences. Empirical evidence against transitivity and monotonicity is reevaluated and the opposite conclusion drawn using more recent data. The more complex accounting equivalences are descriptively implausible. The three simplest--idempotence, complementarity, and event commutativity--seem to be the only ones that may be descriptive. These, coupled with the postulate of an interval scale representation, result in a rank-dependent, weighted linear generalization of SEU. Further generalizations to nonbinary mixtures and to rank- and sign-dependent representations are also described. Problems in testing these theories are discussed. Copyright 1992 by Kluwer Academic Publishers

Date: 1992
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (7)

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:kap:jrisku:v:5:y:1992:i:1:p:5-27

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer. ... ry/journal/11166/PS2

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Risk and Uncertainty is currently edited by W. Kip Viscusi

More articles in Journal of Risk and Uncertainty from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().