Elements Of Risk Analysis In Non-Linear Utility Theory

References

• M. Allais, “Le comportement de l'homme rationnel devant le risque: critique des postulats et axiomes de l’ecole Americaine,” Econometrica, 21, 1953, 503–46
   Google Scholar
• M. Allais, “The so-called Allais paradox and rational decisions under uncertainty,” in M. AUais and O. Hagen (eds). Expected Utility Hypotheses and the Allais Paradox. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel, 1979, 437–681
   Google Scholar
• K.J. Arrow, Essays in the Theory of Risk Bearing. Amsterdam: North-HoUand, 1974
   Google Scholar
• D.E. Bell, “Regret in decision making under uncertainty,” Operations Research, 30, 1982,961–81
   Google Scholar
• S.H. Chew, “A generalization of the quasilinear mean with applications to the measurement of income inequality and decision theory resolving the Allais paradox,” Econometrica, 51, 1985, 1065–92
   Google Scholar
• S.H. Chew, “A mixture set axiomatization of weighted utility theory,” Discussion Paper 82–4, College of Business and Public Administration, University of Arizona, April 1982
   Google Scholar
• S.H. Chew and K.R. MacCrimmon, “Alpha-nu choice theory: a generalization of expected utility theory,” Working Paper 669, The University of British Columbia, July 1979
   Google Scholar
• P.C. Fishburn, “Nontransitive measurable utility,” Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 26, 1982, 31–67
   Google Scholar
• P.C. Fishburn, “Transitive measurable utility,"Joumalof Economic Theory, 31,1983, 293–317
   Google Scholar
• P.C. Fishburn, “SSB utility theory: an economic perspective,” Bell Laboratories, April 1983
   Google Scholar
• P.C. Fishburn and G. A. Kochenberger, “Two-piece von Neumann-Morgenstern utility functions,” Decision Sciences, 10, 1979, 503–18
   Google Scholar
• P.C. Fishburn and R.G. Vickson, “Theoretical foundations of stochastic dominance,” in G.A. Whitmore and M.C. Findlay (eds). Stochastic Dominance. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath, 1978,37–113
   Google Scholar
• M. Friedman and L.J. Savage, “The utility analysis of choices involving risk,” Journal of Political Economy, 56, 1948, 279–304
   Google Scholar
• D.M. Grether and CR. Plott, “Economic theory of choice and the preference reversal phenomenon,” American Economic Review, 69, 1979, 623–38
   Google Scholar
• J.C. Hershey, H.C. Kunreuther, and P.J.H. Schoemaker, “Sources of bias in assessment procedures for utility functions,” Management Science, 28, 1982, 936–54
   Google Scholar
• D. Kahneman and A. Tversky, “Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk,” Econometrica, 47, 1979, 263–91
   Google Scholar
• S. Lichtenstein and P. Slovic, “Reversal of preferences between bids and choices in gambling decisions,” Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89, 1971,46–55
   Google Scholar
• G. Loomes and R. Sugden, “Regret theory: an alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty,” Economic Journal, 92, 1982, 805–24
   Google Scholar
• K.R. MacCrimmon and S. Larsson, “Utility theory: axioms versus ’paradoxes,’” in M. AUais and O. Hagen (eds), Expected Utility Hypotheses and the Allais Paradox. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel, 1979, 333–409
   Google Scholar
• M.J. Machina, ’"Expected utility’ analysis without the independence axiom,” Econometrica, 50, 1982, 277–323
   Google Scholar
• M.J. Machina, “A stronger chaTacterizatiou of declining risk aversion,” Econometrica, 50, 1982, 1069–79
   Google Scholar
• K.O. May, “Intransitivity, utility, and the aggregation of preference patterns,” Econometrica, 22, 1954, 1–13
   Google Scholar
• J.W. Pratt, “Risk aversion in the small and in the large,” Econometrica, 32, 1964, 122–36
   Google Scholar
• P. Slovic and S. Lichtenstein, “Preference reversals: a broader perspective,” American Economic Review, 73,1983, 596–605
   Google Scholar
• J. von Neumann and O. Morgenstfern, Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princpton University Press, 1944.
   Google Scholar
• G.A. Whitmore and! M.C. Findlay (ed?), Stochastic Dondnance. Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath, 1978
   Google Scholar