Mathematical Psychology
About

Expected Utility Theory

Expected Utility Theory provides the normative foundation for rational decision making under risk, positing that agents choose the option with the highest probability-weighted utility.

EU(L) = Σ pᵢ · u(xᵢ)

Expected Utility Theory (EUT), formalized by von Neumann and Morgenstern in 1944 and anticipated by Daniel Bernoulli in 1738, states that a rational decision maker evaluates risky prospects (lotteries) by computing the expected value of a utility function over outcomes. Bernoulli's key insight was that the utility of money is not linear — a gain of $100 matters more to a pauper than to a millionaire — leading to the concave utility function that explains risk aversion.

The Expected Utility Formula

Expected Utility EU(L) = Σ pᵢ · u(xᵢ)

L = lottery (p₁, x₁; p₂, x₂; ...)
u(x) = utility function over outcomes
Choose L₁ over L₂ iff EU(L₁) > EU(L₂)

Utility Functions and Risk Attitudes

The curvature of the utility function determines risk attitude. A concave utility function (u″ < 0) implies risk aversion: the expected utility of a gamble is less than the utility of its expected value. A convex function implies risk seeking. A linear function implies risk neutrality. Common functional forms include logarithmic (u(x) = ln(x)), power (u(x) = xᵅ, α < 1), and exponential (u(x) = 1 − e^(−αx)) utility.

Limitations

Despite its normative appeal, EUT is systematically violated by human decision makers. The Allais paradox demonstrates violations of the independence axiom. Prospect theory replaces EUT with a descriptive model incorporating reference dependence, loss aversion, and probability weighting. Nevertheless, EUT remains the benchmark for rational choice and the starting point for all alternative theories.

Related Topics

References

  1. von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400829460
  2. Bernoulli, D. (1738/1954). Exposition of a new theory on the measurement of risk. Econometrica, 22(1), 23–36. https://doi.org/10.2307/1909829
  3. Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1982). The expected utility model: Its variants, purposes, evidence and limitations. Journal of Economic Literature, 20(2), 529–563. https://doi.org/10.2307/2724488
  4. Machina, M. J. (1987). Choice under uncertainty: Problems solved and unsolved. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1(1), 121–154. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.1.1.121

External Links