Distorted Probabilities and Choice under Risk
During the development of modern probability theory in the 17th cen­ tury it was commonly held that the attractiveness of a gamble offering the payoffs :1:17 ••• ,:l: with probabilities Pl, . . . , Pn is given by its expected n value L:~ :l:iPi. Accordingly, the decision problem of choosing among different such gambles - which will be called prospects or lotteries in the sequel-was thought to be solved by maximizing the corresponding expected values. The famous St. Petersburg paradox posed by Nicholas Bernoulli in 1728, however, conclusively demonstrated the fact that individuals l consider more than just the expected value. The resolution of the St. Petersburg paradox was proposed independently by Gabriel Cramer and Nicholas's cousin Daniel Bernoulli [BERNOULLI 1738/1954]. Their argument was that in a gamble with payoffs :l:i the decisive factors are not the payoffs themselves but their subjective values u( :l:i)' According to this argument gambles are evaluated on the basis of the expression L:~ U(Xi)pi. This hypothesis -with a somewhat different interpretation of the function u - has been given a solid axiomatic foundation in 1944 by v. Neumann and Morgenstern and is now known as the expected utility hypothesis. The resulting model has served for a long time as the preeminent theory of choice under risk, especially in its economic applications.
1101508808
Distorted Probabilities and Choice under Risk
During the development of modern probability theory in the 17th cen­ tury it was commonly held that the attractiveness of a gamble offering the payoffs :1:17 ••• ,:l: with probabilities Pl, . . . , Pn is given by its expected n value L:~ :l:iPi. Accordingly, the decision problem of choosing among different such gambles - which will be called prospects or lotteries in the sequel-was thought to be solved by maximizing the corresponding expected values. The famous St. Petersburg paradox posed by Nicholas Bernoulli in 1728, however, conclusively demonstrated the fact that individuals l consider more than just the expected value. The resolution of the St. Petersburg paradox was proposed independently by Gabriel Cramer and Nicholas's cousin Daniel Bernoulli [BERNOULLI 1738/1954]. Their argument was that in a gamble with payoffs :l:i the decisive factors are not the payoffs themselves but their subjective values u( :l:i)' According to this argument gambles are evaluated on the basis of the expression L:~ U(Xi)pi. This hypothesis -with a somewhat different interpretation of the function u - has been given a solid axiomatic foundation in 1944 by v. Neumann and Morgenstern and is now known as the expected utility hypothesis. The resulting model has served for a long time as the preeminent theory of choice under risk, especially in its economic applications.
54.99 In Stock
Distorted Probabilities and Choice under Risk

Distorted Probabilities and Choice under Risk

by Clemens Puppe
Distorted Probabilities and Choice under Risk

Distorted Probabilities and Choice under Risk

by Clemens Puppe

Paperback(Softcover reprint of the original 1st ed. 1991)

$54.99 
  • SHIP THIS ITEM
    In stock. Ships in 6-10 days.
  • PICK UP IN STORE

    Your local store may have stock of this item.

Related collections and offers


Overview

During the development of modern probability theory in the 17th cen­ tury it was commonly held that the attractiveness of a gamble offering the payoffs :1:17 ••• ,:l: with probabilities Pl, . . . , Pn is given by its expected n value L:~ :l:iPi. Accordingly, the decision problem of choosing among different such gambles - which will be called prospects or lotteries in the sequel-was thought to be solved by maximizing the corresponding expected values. The famous St. Petersburg paradox posed by Nicholas Bernoulli in 1728, however, conclusively demonstrated the fact that individuals l consider more than just the expected value. The resolution of the St. Petersburg paradox was proposed independently by Gabriel Cramer and Nicholas's cousin Daniel Bernoulli [BERNOULLI 1738/1954]. Their argument was that in a gamble with payoffs :l:i the decisive factors are not the payoffs themselves but their subjective values u( :l:i)' According to this argument gambles are evaluated on the basis of the expression L:~ U(Xi)pi. This hypothesis -with a somewhat different interpretation of the function u - has been given a solid axiomatic foundation in 1944 by v. Neumann and Morgenstern and is now known as the expected utility hypothesis. The resulting model has served for a long time as the preeminent theory of choice under risk, especially in its economic applications.

Product Details

ISBN-13: 9783540542476
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Publication date: 07/10/1991
Series: Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems , #363
Edition description: Softcover reprint of the original 1st ed. 1991
Pages: 100
Product dimensions: 6.69(w) x 9.53(h) x 0.01(d)

Table of Contents

1 Axiomatic Utility Theory under Risk.- 1.1 Historical Overview.- 1.2 The Axiomatic Basis of Expected Utility Theory.- 1.3 The Empirical Evidence against the Independence Axiom.- 1.4 Non-Linear Utility Theory under Risk.- 2 A Rank-Dependent Utility Model with Prize-Dependent Distortion of Probabilities.- 2.1 Rank-Dependent Utility Theory Reconsidered.- 2.2 Homogeneity on Elementary Lotteries.- 2.3 Further Evidence for Prize-Dependent Distortions of Probabilities.- 2.4 A Characterization Theorem.- 2.5 Rank-Dependent Utility Theory and Relative Utility.- 2.6 A Generalized Model.- 3 Risk Aversion.- 3.1 Risk Aversion in the General Rank-Dependent Utility Model.- 3.2 Risk Aversion and Homogeneity.- 3.3 Decreasing Risk Aversion.- 3.4 The Friedman-Savage Hypothesis.- Conclusion.- References.
From the B&N Reads Blog

Customer Reviews