Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:

login

Log in through your institution.

If You Use a Screen Reader

This content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.

Two-Stage Lotteries without the Reduction Axiom

Uzi Segal
Econometrica
Vol. 58, No. 2 (Mar., 1990), pp. 349-377
Published by: The Econometric Society
DOI: 10.2307/2938207
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2938207
Page Count: 29
  • Read Online (Free)
  • Download ($10.00)
  • Subscribe ($19.50)
  • Cite this Item
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Two-Stage Lotteries without the Reduction Axiom
Preview not available

Abstract

This paper analyzes preference relations over two-stage lotteries, i.e., lotteries having as outcomes tickets for other, simple, lotteries. Empirical evidence indicates that decision makers do not always behave in accordance with the reduction of compound lotteries axiom, but it seems that they satisfy a compound independence axiom (also known as the certainty equivalent mechanism). It turns out that although the reduction and the compound independence axioms together with continuity imply expected utility theory, each of them by itself is compatible with all possible preference relations over simple lotteries. By using these axioms I analyze three different versions of expected utility for two-stage lotteries. The second part of the paper is devoted to possible replacements of the reduction axiom. For this I suggest several different compound dominance axioms. These axioms compare two-stage lotteries by the probability they assign to the upper and lower sets of all simple lotteries X. (For a simple lottery X, its upper (lower) set is the set of lotteries that dominate (are dominated by) X by first order stochastic dominance.) It turns out that these axioms are all strictly weaker than the reduction of compound lotteries axiom. The main theoretical results of this part are: (1) an axiomatic basis for expected utility theory that does not require the reduction axiom and (2) a new axiomatization of the anticipated utility model (also known as expected utility with rank-dependent probabilities). These representation theorems indicate that to a certain extent the rank dependent probabilities model is a natural extension of expected utility theory. Finally, I show that some paradoxes in expected utility theory can be explained, provided one is willing to use the compound independence rather than the reduction axiom.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
349
    349
  • Thumbnail: Page 
350
    350
  • Thumbnail: Page 
351
    351
  • Thumbnail: Page 
352
    352
  • Thumbnail: Page 
353
    353
  • Thumbnail: Page 
354
    354
  • Thumbnail: Page 
355
    355
  • Thumbnail: Page 
356
    356
  • Thumbnail: Page 
357
    357
  • Thumbnail: Page 
358
    358
  • Thumbnail: Page 
359
    359
  • Thumbnail: Page 
360
    360
  • Thumbnail: Page 
361
    361
  • Thumbnail: Page 
362
    362
  • Thumbnail: Page 
363
    363
  • Thumbnail: Page 
364
    364
  • Thumbnail: Page 
365
    365
  • Thumbnail: Page 
366
    366
  • Thumbnail: Page 
367
    367
  • Thumbnail: Page 
368
    368
  • Thumbnail: Page 
369
    369
  • Thumbnail: Page 
370
    370
  • Thumbnail: Page 
371
    371
  • Thumbnail: Page 
372
    372
  • Thumbnail: Page 
373
    373
  • Thumbnail: Page 
374
    374
  • Thumbnail: Page 
375
    375
  • Thumbnail: Page 
376
    376
  • Thumbnail: Page 
377
    377