Guessing the beliefs
AbstractA decision maker facing Knightian uncertainty is about to tell if he prefers an act X or Y. Two agents try to guess what he is going to do. All of them have preferences that achieve a separation of utility from beliefs. The only thing that the two agents do not know is the beliefs, so they evaluate them. We give a definition of "guessing better" and deal with its implications. We study particular cases as subjective expected utility and Choquet expected utility.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Elsevier in its journal Journal of Mathematical Economics.
Volume (Year): 45 (2009)
Issue (Month): 12 (December)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jmateco
Separation of utility and beliefs Non-additive expected utility Choquet expected utility;
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- David Schmeidler, 1989.
"Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
7662, David K. Levine.
- Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-87, May.
- AUMANN, Robert J., .
"Subjectivity and correlation in randomized strategies,"
CORE Discussion Papers RP
-167, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
- Aumann, Robert J., 1974. "Subjectivity and correlation in randomized strategies," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 67-96, March.
- R. Aumann, 2010. "Subjectivity and Correlation in Randomized Strategies," Levine's Working Paper Archive 389, David K. Levine.
- Gilboa, Itzhak & Lehrer, Ehud, 1991.
"The value of information - An axiomatic approach,"
Journal of Mathematical Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 20(5), pages 443-459.
- Yaari, Menahem E, 1987. "The Dual Theory of Choice under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(1), pages 95-115, January.
- Lehrer, Ehud, 1998. "Comparison of experts," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 207-214, September.
- Ghirardato, Paolo & Maccheroni, Fabio & Marinacci, Massimo, 2005.
"Certainty Independence and the Separation of Utility and Beliefs,"
Journal of Economic Theory,
Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 129-136, January.
- Paolo Ghirardato & Fabio Maccheroni & Massimo Marinacci, 2002. "Certainty Independence and the Separation of Utility and Beliefs," ICER Working Papers - Applied Mathematics Series 40-2002, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
- Daniel Ellsberg, 2000. "Risk, Ambiguity and the Savage Axioms," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7605, David K. Levine.
- Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
- Chateauneuf, Alain, 1991. "On the use of capacities in modeling uncertainty aversion and risk aversion," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 343-369.
- Teper, Roee, 2010. "On comparison of non-Bayesian experts," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 119-122, September.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.