IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/cesptp/halshs-00594082.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

In search of characterization of the preference for safety under the Choquet model

Author

Listed:
  • Michèle Cohen

    (CES - Centre d'économie de la Sorbonne - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, PSE - Paris School of Economics - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - ENS-PSL - École normale supérieure - Paris - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - ENPC - École des Ponts ParisTech - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement)

  • Isaac Meilijson

    (TAU - School of Mathematical Sciences [Tel Aviv] - TAU - Raymond and Beverly Sackler Faculty of Exact Sciences [Tel Aviv] - TAU - Tel Aviv University)

Abstract

Victor prefers safety more than Ursula if whenever Ursula prefers some constant to some uncertain act, so does Victor. This paradigm, whose Expected Utility version takes the form of Arrow & Pratt's more risk averse concept, will be studied in the Choquet Uncertainty model, letting u and μ (v and ν) be Ursula's (Victor's) utility and capacity. A necessary and sufficient condition (A) on the pairs (u, μ) and (v, ν) will be presented for dichotomous weak increased uncertainty aversion, the preference by Victor of a constant over a dichotomous act whenever such is the preference of Ursula. This condition, pointwise inequality between a function defined in terms of v (u-1(⋅)) and another defined purely in terms of the capacities, preserves the flavor of the "more pessimism than greediness" characterization of monotone risk aversion by Chateauneuf, Cohen & Meilijson in the Rank-dependent Utility Model and its extension by Grant & Quiggin to the Choquet Utility Model. A sufficient condition (B) in terms of the capacities only, satisfied in particular if ν (⋅) = f (μ (⋅)) for some convex f, will be presented for more simplicity seeking, the preference by Victor over any act for some dichotomous act, that leaves Ursula indifferent. Condition A is thus a characterization of weak increased uncertainty aversion for convex f. An example will be exhibited disproving the more far reaching conjecture under which the dichotomous case implies the general case.

Suggested Citation

  • Michèle Cohen & Isaac Meilijson, 2011. "In search of characterization of the preference for safety under the Choquet model," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00594082, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:cesptp:halshs-00594082
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00594082
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00594082/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alain Chateauneuf & Michéle Cohen & Isaac Meilijson, 2005. "More pessimism than greediness: a characterization of monotone risk aversion in the rank-dependent expected utility model," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 25(3), pages 649-667, April.
    2. Ghirardato, Paolo & Marinacci, Massimo, 2002. "Ambiguity Made Precise: A Comparative Foundation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 251-289, February.
    3. Larry G. Epstein, 1999. "A Definition of Uncertainty Aversion," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 66(3), pages 579-608.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Grant, Simon & Quiggin, John, 2005. "Increasing uncertainty: a definition," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 117-141, March.
    2. Xiangyu Qu, 2015. "A belief-based definition of ambiguity aversion," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(1), pages 15-30, July.
    3. Eichberger, Jürgen & Kelsey, David, 2007. "Ambiguity," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 07-50, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
      • Eichberger, Jürgen & Kelsey, David, 2007. "Ambiguity," Papers 07-50, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    4. Michèle Cohen & Isaac Meilijson, 2014. "Preference for safety under the Choquet model: in search of a characterization," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 55(3), pages 619-642, April.
    5. repec:awi:wpaper:0448 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. 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.
    7. Jewitt, Ian & Mukerji, Sujoy, 2017. "Ordering ambiguous acts," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 213-267.
    8. Michèle Cohen & Isaac Meilijson, 2011. "In search of characterization of the preference for safety under the Choquet model," Post-Print halshs-00594082, HAL.
    9. Zimper, Alexander, 2012. "Asset pricing in a Lucas fruit-tree economy with the best and worst in mind," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 610-628.
    10. Robert Nau, 2001. "De Finetti was Right: Probability Does Not Exist," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 89-124, December.
    11. 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.
    12. Gajdos, T. & Hayashi, T. & Tallon, J.-M. & Vergnaud, J.-C., 2008. "Attitude toward imprecise information," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 140(1), pages 27-65, May.
    13. Thibault Gajdos & Jean-Marc Tallon & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud, 2002. "Coping with imprecise information: a decision theoretic approach," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques v04056, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), revised May 2004.
    14. Loïc Berger & Louis Eeckhoudt, 2021. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Value of Diversification," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(3), pages 1639-1647, March.
    15. Alexander Ludwig & Alexander Zimper, 2013. "A decision-theoretic model of asset-price underreaction and overreaction to dividend news," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 625-665, November.
    16. Brian Hill, 2009. "Confidence and ambiguity," Working Papers hal-00489870, HAL.
    17. Adam Dominiak & Wendelin Schnedler, 2011. "Attitudes toward uncertainty and randomization: an experimental study," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 48(2), pages 289-312, October.
    18. Alain Chateauneuf & Luciano De Castro, 2011. "Ambiguity Aversion and Absence of Trade," Discussion Papers 1535, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    19. Klaus Nehring, 2006. "Decision-Making in the Context of Imprecise Probabilistic Beliefs," Economics Working Papers 0034, Institute for Advanced Study, School of Social Science.
    20. Grant, S. & Quiggin, J., 2001. "A Model-Free Definition of Increasing Uncertainty," Discussion Paper 2001-84, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    21. Hui Chen & Nengjiu Ju & Jianjun Miao, 2014. "Dynamic Asset Allocation with Ambiguous Return Predictability," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 17(4), pages 799-823, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Modèle de Choquet; avidité; pessimisme; utilité dépendant du rang; aversion pour le risque; incertain.; Choquet Utility; greediness; pessimism; Rank-dependent Utility; Risk aversion; uncertainty.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:hal:cesptp:halshs-00594082. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.