Epistemic Conditions for Equilibrium in Beliefs Without Independence
AbstractR. J. Aumann and A. Brandenburger (1995) provide sufficient conditions on the knowledge of the players in a game for their beliefs to constitute a Nash equilibrium. They assume, among other things, mutual knowledge of rationality. By rationality of a player, it is meant that the action chosen by him maximizes his expected utility, given his beliefs. There is, however, no need to restrict the notion of rationality to expected utility maximization. This paper shows that their result can be generalized to the case where players' preferences over uncertain outcomes belong to a large class of nonexpected utility preferences. (c) 1996 Academic Press, Inc.
Download InfoTo our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Iowa State University, Department of Economics in its series Staff General Research Papers with number 5169.
Date of creation: 01 Aug 1996
Date of revision:
Publication status: Published in Journal of Economic Theory, August 1996, vol. 70 no. 2, pp. 391-406
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Iowa State University, Dept. of Economics, 260 Heady Hall, Ames, IA 50011-1070
Phone: +1 515.294.6741
Fax: +1 515.294.0221
Web page: http://www.econ.iastate.edu
More information through EDIRC
Other versions of this item:
- Volij, Oscar, 1996. "Epistemic Conditions for Equilibrium in Beliefs without Independence," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 391-406, August.
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Volij, Oscar, 2002.
"A remark on bargaining and non-expected utility,"
Mathematical Social Sciences,
Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 17-24, September.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Stephanie Bridges) The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Stephanie Bridges to update the entry or send us the correct address.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.