IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/8168.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Solution of the Ellsberg paradox by means of the principle of uncertain future

Author

Listed:
  • Harin, Alexander

Abstract

The principle of uncertain future: the probability of a future event contains an (hidden) uncertainty. The first consequence of the principle: the real values of high probabilities are lower than the preliminarily determined ones; conversely, the real values of low probabilities can be higher than the preliminarily determined ones. The first consequence provides an uniform solution of the underweighting of high and the overweighting of low probabilities, of the Allais paradox, risk aversion, loss aversion, the equity premium puzzle, the “fourfold pattern” paradox, etc. The second consequence: the present probability system of a future event is incomplete. The second consequence provides a solution of the incompleteness of systems of preferences, of ambiguity aversion, of the Ellsberg paradox, etc.

Suggested Citation

  • Harin, Alexander, 2008. "Solution of the Ellsberg paradox by means of the principle of uncertain future," MPRA Paper 8168, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:8168
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/8168/1/MPRA_paper_8168.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tversky, Amos & Wakker, Peter, 1995. "Risk Attitudes and Decision Weights," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 63(6), pages 1255-1280, November.
    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. Harin, Alexander, 2014. "Is data interpretation in utility and prospect theories unquestionably correct?," MPRA Paper 53880, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Harin, Alexander, 2014. "General correcting formulae for forecasts," MPRA Paper 55283, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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. 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.
    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. Houba, Harold & Tieman, Alexander F. & Brinksma, Rene, 1998. "The Nash bargaining solution for decision weight utility functions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 41-48, July.
    4. 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.
    5. Kocher, Martin G. & Krawczyk, Michal & van Winden, Frans, 2014. "‘Let me dream on!’ Anticipatory emotions and preference for timing in lotteries," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 29-40.
    6. Enrico Diecidue & Peter Wakker & Marcel Zeelenberg, 2007. "Eliciting decision weights by adapting de Finetti’s betting-odds method to prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 179-199, June.
    7. 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.
    8. Jacquemet, Nicolas & Rullière, Jean-Louis & Vialle, Isabelle, 2008. "Monitoring optimistic agents," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 698-714, November.
    9. Marcello Basili, 2006. "A Rational Decision Rule with Extreme Events," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1721-1728, December.
    10. Bargiacchi, R., 2006. "Modelling and testing behavior in applications to climate change," Other publications TiSEM 81ad891a-d58b-4eb6-af6a-a, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    11. Víctor González-Jiménez, 2021. "Incentive contracts when agents distort probabilities," Vienna Economics Papers vie2101, University of Vienna, Department of Economics.
    12. Syngjoo Choi & Jeongbin Kim & Eungik Lee & Jungmin Lee, 2022. "Probability Weighting and Cognitive Ability," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(7), pages 5201-5215, July.
    13. Yacine AÏT‐SAHALI & Michael W. Brandt, 2001. "Variable Selection for Portfolio Choice," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 56(4), pages 1297-1351, August.
    14. Eric Langlais, 2008. "Le "risque judiciaire" et les licenciements en France : le point de vue de l’économie du risque," Cahiers du CEREFIGE 0807, CEREFIGE (Centre Europeen de Recherche en Economie Financiere et Gestion des Entreprises), Universite de Lorraine, revised 2008.
    15. Roy Thurik, 2014. "Entrepreneurship and the business cycle," IZA World of Labor, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA), pages 1-90, October.
    16. Kim Kaivanto & Eike Kroll, 2014. "Alternation bias and reduction in St. Petersburg gambles," Working Papers 65600286, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    17. Jean-Pierre Benoît & Juan Dubra & Giorgia Romagnoli, 2022. "Belief Elicitation When More than Money Matters: Controlling for "Control"," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 837-888, August.
    18. Mary Riddel & Sonja Kolstoe, 2013. "Heterogeneity in life-duration preferences: Are risky recreationists really more risk loving?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 191-213, April.
    19. Sarin, Rakesh & Wakker, Peter P, 1998. "Revealed Likelihood and Knightian Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 223-250, July-Aug..
    20. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Olivier L'Haridon & Corina Paraschiv, 2011. "Experienced vs. Described Uncertainty: Do We Need Two Prospect Theory Specifications?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(10), pages 1879-1895, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    uncertainty; risk; utility; choice; decisions; probability;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • C5 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling
    • A1 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics
    • E17 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - General Aggregative Models - - - Forecasting and Simulation: Models and Applications
    • B4 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Economic Methodology
    • D01 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles

    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:pra:mprapa:8168. 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.html .

    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.