Utility interactions in a two-person world
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 6283442 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Lee E Preston (School of Business Administration, University of California, Berkeley, corresponding author) |
| Year | 1961 |
| Volume | 5 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 354-365 |
| Publication date | 1961-12-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Conflict Resolution (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0022-0027 • E-ISSN: 1552-8766 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1177/002200276100500402 |
| OpenAlex | W2093155733 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 1 |
In an article published shortly after his death, Professor Stefan Valavanis presented a clever and suggestive model for the consideration of utility interactions between two individuals in situations of potential conflict (1). He argued that the choice of a particular combination of utilities (ul, u2) on or within the welfare frontier could be determined by the consideration of vicariousness, the reaction of each participant to the utility level attained by the other. He proceeded to suggest a number of possible forms which the two functions might take, and to point out the possibilities of equilibrium and conflict which might result. This note suggests a modification of Valavanis' work involving both its substance and the method of exposition. The substantive point has to do with the role of the familiar welfare frontier in the analysis, and the expositional point involves the revision of the diagrams to permit the illustration of the substantive modification. As Valavanis notes, the welfare frontier is determined by fixed technology, tastes, and resources, and shows how well off one man may be when all other men (or the other man, in a two-person world) achieve some given level of satisfaction. This frontier implicitly excludes vicariousness, the importance of which is the central point of Valavanis' essay. The welfare frontier is an interesting point of reference in this analysis; however, it need not be a restriction on vicarious pleasure. It may be that religion has not kept pace with science or, alternatively, that 'tis love and love alone the world is seeking. To associate vicariousness solely with the restriction of satisfactions short of the welfare frontier is to focus
Economics · Political economy · Political science · Positive economics · Economic theories and models · Economic Theory and Institutions · Psychology · Social Psychology
| Unique citing works | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,05 |
| Citation span | 1967 - 2004 (38) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 3 |