The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Two-Stage Lotteries without the Reduction Axiom
Open accessAbstract
Preference relations over two-stage lotteries are analyzed. Empirical evidence indicates that decisionmakers do not always behave in accordance with the reduction of compound lotteries axiom, but they seem to satisfy a compound independence axiom. Although the reduction and the compound independence axioms, together with continuity, imply expected utility theory, each of them by itself is compatible with all possible preference relations over simple lotteries. Using these axioms, the author analyzes three different versions of expected utility for two-stage lotteries. The author suggests several different compound dominance axioms as possible replacements of the reduction axiom, which are strictly weaker than the reduction of compound lotteries axiom. Copyright 1990 by The Econometric Society.
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
Cites
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524
Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1988) · Decision, Probability and Utility · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511609220.014 · Cited by 32,474
Allais, M. (1953) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1907921 · Cited by 4,112
A theory of anticipated utility
Quiggin, J. (1982) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/0167-2681(82)90008-7 · Cited by 3,129
Lectures on Functional Equations and their Applications.
Hahn, F., Aczel, J., & Oser, H. (1968) · The American Mathematical Monthly · doi:10.2307/2314998 · Cited by 2,594
Temporal Resolution of Uncertainty and Dynamic Choice Theory
Kreps, D. M., & Porteus, E. L. (1978) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1913656 · Cited by 1,821
La prévision : ses lois logiques, ses sources subjectives
de Finetti, B. (1937) · French digital mathematics library (Numdam) · Cited by 1,642
"Expected Utility" Analysis without the Independence Axiom
Machina, M. J. (1982) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1912631 · Cited by 1,517
The Efficiency Analysis of Choices Involving Risk
Hanoch, G., & Levy, H. (1969) · The Review of Economic Studies · doi:10.2307/2296431 · Cited by 1,411
Ramsey, F. P. (2016) · Readings in Formal Epistemology · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-20451-2_3 · Cited by 1,301
Cited by
Developments in Non-Expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk
Starmer, C. (2000) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.38.2.332 · Cited by 1,899
A Smooth Model of Decision Making under Ambiguity
Klibanoff, P., Marinacci, M., & Mukerji, S. (2005) · Econometrica · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0262.2005.00640.x · Cited by 1,882
Ellsberg Revisited: An Experimental Study
Halevy, Y. (2007) · Econometrica · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0262.2006.00755.x · Cited by 609
Making Descriptive Use of Prospect Theory to Improve the Prescriptive Use of Expected Utility
Bleichrodt, H., Pinto, J. L., & Wakker, P. P. (2001) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.47.11.1498.10248 · Cited by 324
Explaining the Favorite–Long Shot Bias: Is it Risk-Love or Misperceptions?
Snowberg, E., & Wolfers, J. (2010) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/655844 · Cited by 316
Metadata
- Authors
- Segal, U.
- Venue
- Econometrica
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1990-03
- Volume
- 58
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 349
- ISSN
- 0012-9682 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2130056398
- Cited by
- 379
- References
- 27
- FWCI
- 9.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Two-Stage Lotteries without the Reduction Axiom. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2938207
- The paper
- Segal, U. (1990). Two-Stage Lotteries without the Reduction Axiom. Econometrica. https://doi.org/10.2307/2938207
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.