Dynamically consistent CEU preferences on f-convex events
AbstractWe give an axiomatic foundation to the updating rule proposed by Sarin and Wakker [Sarin, R., Wakker, P.P., 1998a. Revealed likelihood and knightian uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 16, 223–250] for CEU preferences. This rule is dynamically consistent but non-consequentialist, since forgone consequences are relevant for conditioning. Whereas it does not work universally, but only when counterfactuals outcomes are better and/or worse than the ones resulting on the conditioning event, the rule has many interesting features, since it is able to describe Ellsberg-type preferences together with a recursive structure of the criterion.
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): 63 (2012)
Issue (Month): 3 ()
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505565
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.:
- Jurgen Eichberger & Simon Grant & David Kelsey, 2006.
"Updating Choquet Beliefs,"
0607, Exeter University, Department of Economics.
- Epstein Larry G. & Le Breton Michel, 1993. "Dynamically Consistent Beliefs Must Be Bayesian," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 1-22, October.
- Dominiak, Adam & Lefort, Jean-Philippe, 2009.
"Unambiguous Events and Dynamic Choquet Preferences,"
0489, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
- Adam Dominiak & Jean-Philippe Lefort, 2011. "Unambiguous events and dynamic Choquet preferences," Economic Theory, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 401-425, April.
- Gilboa Itzhak & Schmeidler David, 1993.
"Updating Ambiguous Beliefs,"
Journal of Economic Theory,
Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 33-49, February.
- Paolo Ghirardato, 2002. "Revisiting Savage in a conditional world," Economic Theory, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 83-92.
- André Lapied & Pascal Toquebeuf, 2010. "Atemporal non-expected utility preferences, dynamic consistency and consequentialism," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 30(2), pages 1661-1669.
- Eichberger, Jurgen & Kelsey, David, 1996.
"Uncertainty Aversion and Dynamic Consistency,"
International Economic Review,
Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 37(3), pages 625-40, August.
- Nobuo Koida, 2012. "Nest-monotonic two-stage acts and exponential probability capacities," Economic Theory, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 99-124, May.
- Klibanoff, Peter & Hanany, Eran, 2007. "Updating preferences with multiple priors," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 2(3), September.
- Sarin, Rakesh & Wakker, Peter P, 1998.
"Revealed Likelihood and Knightian Uncertainty,"
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty,
Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 223-50, July-Aug..
- Alain Chateauneuf & Robert Kast & AndrÃ© Lapied, 2001. "Conditioning Capacities and Choquet Integrals: The Role of Comonotony," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 367-386, December.
- Larry G. Epstein & Martin Schneider, 2001.
RCER Working Papers
485, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
- Machina, Mark J, 1989. "Dynamic Consistency and Non-expected Utility Models of Choice under Uncertainty," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 27(4), pages 1622-68, December.
- 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 & Grant, Simon & Kelsey, David, 2005.
"CEU preferences and dynamic consistency,"
Mathematical Social Sciences,
Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 143-151, March.
- Wakker, Peter, 1989. "Continuous subjective expected utility with non-additive probabilities," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 1-27, February.
- Mark J. Machina, 2009. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Rank-Dependence Axioms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(1), pages 385-92, March.
- Dominiak, Adam & Lefort, Jean-Philippe, 2011. "Unambiguous events and dynamic Choquet preferences," Economics Papers from University Paris Dauphine 123456789/7323, Paris Dauphine University.
- Young, Virginia R., 1998. "Families of update rules for non-additive measures: Applications in pricing risks," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 1-14, October.
- Alexander Zimper, 2011. "Re-examining the law of iterated expectations for Choquet decision makers," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(4), pages 669-677, October.
- Sarin, Rakesh & Wakker, Peter P, 1998. "Dynamic Choice and NonExpected Utility," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 87-119, November.
- Gilboa, Itzhak, 1987. "Expected utility with purely subjective non-additive probabilities," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 65-88, February.
- Dominiak, Adam, 2013. "Iterated Choquet expectations: A possibility result," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 120(2), pages 155-159.
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.