IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/theord/v81y2016i2d10.1007_s11238-016-9534-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Peter Fishburn’s analysis of ambiguity

Author

Listed:
  • Mark Shattuck

    (The University of Tennessee)

  • Carl Wagner

    (The University of Tennessee)

Abstract

In ordinary discourse the term ambiguity typically refers to vagueness or imprecision in a natural language. Among decision theorists, however, this term usually refers to imprecision in an individual’s probabilistic judgments, in the sense that the available evidence is consistent with more than one probability distribution over possible states of the world. Avoiding a prior commitment to either of these interpretations, Fishburn has explored ambiguity as a primitive concept, in terms of what he calls an ambiguity measure a on the power set $$2^{\Omega }$$ 2 Ω of a finite set $$\Omega $$ Ω , characterized by five axioms. We prove, in purely set-theoretic terms, that if $$\lambda $$ λ is a so-called necessity measure on $$2^{\Omega }$$ 2 Ω and $$\upsilon $$ υ is its associated possibility measure, then $$a=\upsilon -\lambda $$ a = υ - λ is an ambiguity measure. When $$\Omega $$ Ω is construed as a set of possible exemplars of a vague predicate $$\phi $$ ϕ , then $$\lambda $$ λ and $$\upsilon $$ υ may be regarded as arising from a fuzzy membership function f on $$\Omega $$ Ω , where $$f(\omega )$$ f ( ω ) designates the degree to which $$\phi $$ ϕ is applicable to $$\omega $$ ω . In this case a(A) represents the degree to which the partition $$\{A,A^{c}\}$$ { A , A c } differentiates members of $$\Omega $$ Ω with respect to the predicate $$\phi $$ ϕ . When $$\Omega $$ Ω is construed as a set of possible states of the world, a necessity measure may be regarded as a very special type of lower probability known as a consonant belief function, and a possibility measure as its associated upper probability, whence a(A) represents the degree of imprecision in the pair $$(\lambda ,\upsilon )$$ ( λ , υ ) with respect to the event A. Fishburn’s axioms are thus consistent with an interpretation of ambiguity as linguistic vagueness, as well as (a very special sort of) probabilistic imprecision.

Suggested Citation

  • Mark Shattuck & Carl Wagner, 2016. "Peter Fishburn’s analysis of ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 81(2), pages 153-165, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:theord:v:81:y:2016:i:2:d:10.1007_s11238-016-9534-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s11238-016-9534-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11238-016-9534-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11238-016-9534-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chen Li, 2017. "Are the poor worse at dealing with ambiguity?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 54(3), pages 239-268, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Christina Leuker & Thorsten Pachur & Ralph Hertwig & Timothy J. Pleskac, 2019. "Do people exploit risk–reward structures to simplify information processing in risky choice?," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(1), pages 76-94, August.
    2. Anne Corcos & François Pannequin & Sacha Bourgeois-Gironde, 2012. "Aversions to Trust," Recherches économiques de Louvain, De Boeck Université, vol. 78(3), pages 115-134.
    3. Simon Levin & Anastasios Xepapadeas, 2021. "On the Coevolution of Economic and Ecological Systems," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 13(1), pages 355-377, October.
    4. Simona Fabrizi & Steffen Lippert & Addison Pan & Matthew Ryan, 2022. "A theory of unanimous jury voting with an ambiguous likelihood," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 93(3), pages 399-425, October.
    5. Kiyohiko G. Nishimura & Hiroyuki Ozaki, 2001. "Search under the Knightian Uncertainty," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-112, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.
    6. Liu, Hui-hui & Song, Yao-yao & Liu, Xiao-xiao & Yang, Guo-liang, 2020. "Aggregating the DEA prospect cross-efficiency with an application to state key laboratories in China," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    7. Chateauneuf, Alain & Eichberger, Jurgen & Grant, Simon, 2007. "Choice under uncertainty with the best and worst in mind: Neo-additive capacities," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 137(1), pages 538-567, November.
    8. André Lapied & Thomas Rongiconi, 2013. "Ambiguity as a Source of Temptation: Modeling Unstable Beliefs," Working Papers halshs-00797631, HAL.
    9. Chorvat, Terrence, 2006. "Taxing utility," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 1-16, February.
    10. Attanasi, Giuseppe Marco & Montesano, Aldo, 2010. "The Price for Information about Probabilities and its Relation with Capacities," TSE Working Papers 10-193, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    11. Vassili Vergopoulos, 2014. "A Behavioral Definition of States of the World," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 14047, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    12. Ghirardato, Paolo & Marinacci, Massimo, 2002. "Ambiguity Made Precise: A Comparative Foundation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 251-289, February.
    13. He, Wei & Yannelis, Nicholas C., 2015. "Equilibrium theory under ambiguity," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 86-95.
    14. Jewitt, Ian & Mukerji, Sujoy, 2017. "Ordering ambiguous acts," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 213-267.
    15. Woo-kyoung Ahn & Sunnie S. Y. Kim & Kristen Kim & Peter K. McNally, 2019. "Which grades are better, A’s and C’s, or all B’s? Effects of variability in grades on mock college admissions decisions," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(6), pages 696-710, November.
    16. Schumacher Johannes M., 2018. "Distortion risk measures, ROC curves, and distortion divergence," Statistics & Risk Modeling, De Gruyter, vol. 35(1-2), pages 35-50, January.
    17. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Peter Klibanoff & Lætitia Placido, 2015. "Experiments on Compound Risk in Relation to Simple Risk and to Ambiguity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(6), pages 1306-1322, June.
    18. Pinkley, Robin L. & Conlon, Donald E. & Sawyer, John E. & Sleesman, Dustin J. & Vandewalle, Don & Kuenzi, Maribeth, 2019. "The power of phantom alternatives in negotiation: How what could be haunts what is," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 34-48.
    19. Jang Ho Kim & Yongjae Lee & Woo Chang Kim & Frank J. Fabozzi, 2022. "Goal-based investing based on multi-stage robust portfolio optimization," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 313(2), pages 1141-1158, June.
    20. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:theord:v:81:y:2016:i:2:d:10.1007_s11238-016-9534-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.