Capacities and probabilistic beliefs: a precarious coexistence
AbstractThis paper raises the problem of how to define revealed probabilistic beliefs in the context of the capacity/Choquet Expected Utility model. At the center of the analysis is a decision-theoretically axiomatized definition of ""revealed unambiguous events."" The definition is shown to impose surprisingly strong restrictions on the underlying capacity and on the set of unambiguous events; in particular, the latter is always an algebra. Alternative weaker definitions violate even minimal criteria of adequacy. Rather than finding fault with the proposed definition, we argue that our results indicate that the CEU model is epistemically restrictive, and point out that analogous problems do not arise within the Maximin Expected Utility model.
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 Mathematical Social Sciences.
Volume (Year): 38 (1999)
Issue (Month): 2 (September)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505565
Other versions of this item:
- Klaus Nehring & Michael Magill & Julian R. Betts, 2003. "Capacities And Probabilistic Beliefs: A Precarious Coexistence," Working Papers 978, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
- Klaus Nehring, . "Capacities And Probabilistic Beliefs: A Precarious Coexistence," Department of Economics 97-08, California Davis - Department of Economics.
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.:
- Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
- Sarin, R. & Wakker, P.P., 1996.
"Revealed likelihood and knightian uncertainty,"
1996-59, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
- Schmeidler, David, 1989.
"Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity,"
Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-87, May.
- David Schmeidler, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7662, David K. Levine.
- Eichberger, Jurgen & Kelsey, David, 1996.
"Uncertainty Aversion and Preference for Randomisation,"
Journal of Economic Theory,
Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 31-43, October.
- Eichberger, J. & Kelsey, D., 1995. "Uncertainty Aversion and Preferences for Randomisation," Department of Economics - Working Papers Series 476, The University of Melbourne.
- Daniel Ellsberg, 2000. "Risk, Ambiguity and the Savage Axioms," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7605, David K. Levine.
This item has more than 25 citations. To prevent cluttering this page, these citations are listed on a separate page. reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.