The DOI matches its Crossref record.
“Lottery Equivalents”: Reduction of the Certainty Effect Problem in Utility Assessment
Abstract
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.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
An experimental test of several generalized utility theories
Camerer, C. F. (1989) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1007/bf00055711 · Cited by 549
Mixed Frames and Risky Decision-Making
Peng, J., Zhang, J., Sun, H., Zeng, Z., Mai, Y., & Miao, D. (2017) · Psychological Reports · doi:10.1177/0033294117717732 · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Authors
- McCord, M., & de Neufville, R.
- Venue
- Management Science
- Published
- 1986-01
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 56-60
- ISSN
- 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5501
- OpenAlex
- W2024691368
- Cited by
- 195
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: “Lottery Equivalents”: Reduction of the Certainty Effect Problem in Utility Assessment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/mnsc.32.1.56
- The paper
- McCord, M., & de Neufville, R. (1986). “Lottery Equivalents”: Reduction of the Certainty Effect Problem in Utility Assessment. Management Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.1.56
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.