This note describes a simple procedure for assessing utility functions which avoids many difficulties of the standard techniques. The conventional methods suffer from at least three drawbacks; they (1) generate utility functions that depend on the probability levels used; (2) chain responses from one question to the next, so that any bias is propagated and even magnified; and (3) change ranges and reference points constantly, introducing range effects and other distortions. Noting the evidence linking the dependence of utility functions on the “certainty effect,” our method: (1) compares lotteries with other lotteries rather than certain amounts; (2) does not “chain” responses; and (3) consistently uses “elementary lotteries” which control for range and reference points. Experimental work supports the proposed procedure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
McCord et al. (1986) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: