Dynamically consistent CEU preferences
AbstractWe give an axiomatic foundation to the updating rule proposed by [Sarin, R. and Wakker, P. P. (1998). Revealed likelihood and knightian uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 16(3):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 Ellsbergtype 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.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by HAL in its series Working Papers with number halshs-00856193.
Date of creation: 23 Nov 2011
Date of revision:
Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00856193
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/
Choquet Expected Utility; Capacities; Dynamic consistency; Updating;
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.:
- André Lapied & Pascal Toquebeuf, 2010. "Atemporal non-expected utility preferences, dynamic consistency and consequentialism," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 30(2), pages 1661-1669.
- Andre Lapied & Pascal Toquebeuf, . "A note on "Re-examining the law of iterated expectations for Choquet decision makers"," Papers 2012-09, TEPP Working Papers.
- Sarin, R. & Wakker, P.P., 1996.
"Revealed likelihood and knightian uncertainty,"
1996-59, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Paolo Ghirardato, 2002. "Revisiting Savage in a conditional world," Economic Theory, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 83-92.
- Eichberger, J. & Kelsey, D., 1993.
"Uncertainty Aversion and Dynamic Consistency,"
93-08, Department of Economics, University of Birmingham.
- 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.
- Wakker, Peter, 1989. "Continuous subjective expected utility with non-additive probabilities," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 1-27, February.
- Itzhak Gilboa & David Schmeidler, 1991.
"Updating Ambiguous Beliefs,"
924, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Klibanoff, Peter & Hanany, Eran, 2007. "Updating preferences with multiple priors," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 2(3), September.
- 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.
- Mark J. Machina, 2009. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Rank-Dependence Axioms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(1), pages 385-92, March.
- Adam Dominiak & Jean-Philippe Lefort, 2011.
"Unambiguous events and dynamic Choquet preferences,"
Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 401-425, April.
- Dominiak, Adam & Lefort, Jean-Philippe, 2009. "Unambiguous Events and Dynamic Choquet Preferences," Working Papers 0489, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
- Eichberger, Jurgen & Grant, Simon & Kelsey, David, 2007.
"Updating Choquet beliefs,"
Journal of Mathematical Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 43(7-8), pages 888-899, September.
- Epstein, Larry G. & Schneider, Martin, 2003.
Journal of Economic Theory,
Elsevier, vol. 113(1), pages 1-31, November.
- 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.
- Dominiak, Adam & Lefort, Jean-Philippe, 2011. "Unambiguous events and dynamic Choquet preferences," Economics Papers from University Paris Dauphine 123456789/7323, Paris Dauphine University.
- Nobuo Koida, 2012. "Nest-monotonic two-stage acts and exponential probability capacities," Economic Theory, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 99-124, May.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (CCSD).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.