Skip to main content
Log in

The utility of gambling

  • Published:
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A tiny utility of gambling is appended to an expected utility model for a risk-averse individual. It is shown that the model can explain small payoff gambles, large prize lotteries, and patterns of risk-seeking in the experimental evidence that are puzzling from the viewpoint of standard theory. At the same time, the model maintains expected utility theory's ability to explain insurance purchase, portfolio diversification, and other risk-averting behavior. The tiny utility of gambling could equally well be appended to models of risky choice other than the expected utility model.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Johanna Thoma & Jonathan Weisberg

References

  • Applebaum, Elie, and Eliakim Katz. (1981). “Market Constraints as a Rationale for the Friedman-Savage Utility Function,”Journal of Political Economy 89, 819–825.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, Kenneth J. (1951). “Alternative Approaches to the Theory of Choice in Risk-Taking Situations,”Econometrica 19, 404–437. Reprinted in Arrow (1974).

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, Kenneth J. (1974).Essays in the Theory of Risk-Bearing. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brenner, Reuven, with Gabrielle A. Brenner. (1990).Gambling and Speculation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Battalio, Raymond C., John H. Kagel, and Komain Jiranyakul. (1990). “Testing Between Alternative Models of Choice Under Uncertainty: Some Initial Results,”Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 3, 25–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, Colin. (1989a). “An Experimental Test of Several Generalized Utility Theories,”Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2, 61–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, Colin. (1989b). “Recent Tests of Generalizations of Expected Utility Theory,” manuscript.

  • Clotfelter, Charles T., and Philip J. Cook. (1989).Selling Hope: State Lotteries in America. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clotfelter, Charles T., and Philip J. Cook. (1990). “On the Economics of State Lotteries,”Journal of Economic Perspectives 4, 105–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clotfelter, Charles T., and Philip J. Cook. (1991). “Lotteries in the Real World,”Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 4, 227–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden, Benjamin. (1977). “The Role of Insurance and Gambling in Allocating Risk Over Time,”Journal of Economic Theory 16, 228–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden, Benjamin. (1979). “An Expected Utility for the Insurance Buying Gambler,”Review of Economic Studies 46, 741–742.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden, Benjamin. (1980). “The Insurance-Buying Gambler,”Economic Inquiry 18, 504–508.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, Peter C. (1980). “A Simple Model for the Utility of Gambling,”Psychometrika 45, 435–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flemming, J.S. (1969). “The Utility of Wealth and the Utility of Windfalls,”Review of Economic Studies 36, 55–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, Milton, and Leonard J. Savage. (1948). “The Utility Analysis of Choices Involving Risk,”Journal of Political Economy 56, 279–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hakannson, Nils H. (1970). “Friedman-Savage Utility Functions Consistent with Risk Aversion,”Quarterly Journal of Economics 84, 472–487.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heath, Chip, and Amos Tversky. (1991). “Preference and Belief: Ambiguity and Competence in Choice under Uncertainty,”Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 4, 5–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hershey, John C., and Paul J. H. Schoemaker. (1980a). “Risk-Taking and Problem Context in the Domain of Losses: An Expected Utility Analysis,”Journal of Risk and Insurance 47, 111–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hershey, John C., and Paul J. H. Schoemaker. (1980b). “Prospect Theory's Reflection Hypothesis: A Critical Examination,”Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 25, 395–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hershey, John C., and Paul J. H. Schoemaker. (1985). “Probability Versus Certainty Equivalence Methods in Utility Measurement: Are They Equivalent?”Management Science 31, 1213–1231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hershey, John C., Howard C. Kunreuther, and Paul J. H. Schoemaker. (1982). “Sources of Bias in Assessment Procedures for Utility Functions,”Management Science 28, 936–954.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirshleifer, Jack. (1966). “Investment Decision Under Uncertainty: Applications of the State-Preference Approach,”Quarterly Journal of Economics 80, 252–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky. (1979). “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decisions Under Risk,”Econometrica 47, 263–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky. (1986). “Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions,”Journal of Business 59, S251-S278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kallick, Maureen, Daniel Suits, Ted Dielman, and Judith Hybels. (1979).A Survey of American Gambling Attitudes and Behavior. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research. Originally published as Appendix 2 ofGambling in America, Commission on the Review of the National Policy Toward Gambling. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Young Chin. (1973). “Choice in the Lottery-Insurance Situation: Augmented-Income Approach,”Quarterly Journal of Economics 87, 148–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landesberger, Michael, and Isaac Meilijson. (1990). “Lotteries, Insurance, and Star-Shaped Utility Functions,”Journal of Economic Theory 52, 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, George. (1987). “Anticipation and the Valuation of Delayed Consumption,”Economic Theory 97, 666–684.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. Duncan. (1980). “Several Possible Measures of Risk,”Theory and Decision 12, 217–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. Duncan. (1981). “Correction to “Several Possible Measures of Risk,“Theory and Decision 13, 381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. Duncan, and Elke U. Weber. (1986). “An Axiomatic Theory of Conjoint, Expected Risk,”Journal of Mathematical Psychology 30, 188–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machina, Mark J. (1982). “Expected Utility” Analysis Without the Independence Axiom,”Econometrica 50, 277–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machina, Mark J. (1987). “Choice Under Uncertainty: Problems Solved and Unsolved,”Journal of Economic Perspectives 1, 121–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markowitz, Harry. (1952). “The Utility of Wealth,”Journal of Political Economy 60, 151–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ng, Yew Kwang. (1965). “Why Do People Buy Lottery Tickets? Choices Involving Risk and the Indivisibility of Expenditure,”Journal of Political Economy 73, 530–535.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollatsek, Alexander, and Amos Tversky. (1970). “A Theory of Risk,”Journal of Mathematical Psychology 7, 540–553.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pope, Robin. (1983). “The Pre-Outcome Period and the Utility of Gambling.” In B. Stigum and F. Wenstop (eds.),Foundations of Utility and Risk Theory with Applications. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, Paul. (1952). “Probability, Utility, and the Independence Axiom,”Econometrica 20, 670–678.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoemaker, Paul J. H. (1982). “The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidence and Limitations,”Journal of Economic Literature 20, 529–563.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. (1991). “Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model,”Quarterly Journal of Economics 106, 1039–1061.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Thanks are due to Julian Betts, Mark Machina, and an anonymous referee for much valuable help.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Conlisk, J. The utility of gambling. J Risk Uncertainty 6, 255–275 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01072614

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01072614

Key words

Navigation