The emergence of "fifty-fifty" probability judgements in a conditional Savage world
AbstractThis paper models the empirical phenomenon of persistent fifty-fifty probability judgements within a dynamic non-additive Savage framework. To this purpose I construct a model of Bayesian learning such that an agent's probability judgement is characterized as the solution to a Choquet expected utility maximization problem with respect to a conditional neo-additive capacity. Only for the non-generic case in which this capacity degenerates to an additive probability measure, the agent's probability judgement coincides with the familiar estimate of a Bayesian statistician who minimizes a quadratic (squared error) loss function with respect to an additive posterior distribution. In contrast, for the generic case in which the capacity is non-additive, the agent's probability judgements converge through Bayesian learning to the unique fuzzy probability measure that assigns a 0.5 probability to any uncertain event.
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 University of Pretoria, Department of Economics in its series Working Papers with number 201221.
Length: 22 pages
Date of creation: May 2012
Date of revision:
Non-additive measures; Learning; Decision analysis; Economics;
Other versions of this item:
- Alexander Zimper, 2012. "The emergence of "fifty-fifty" probability judgements in a conditional Savage world," Working Papers 291, Economic Research Southern Africa.
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.:
- Manski, Charles F. & Molinari, Francesca, 2010. "Rounding Probabilistic Expectations in Surveys," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 28(2), pages 219-231.
- Kleinjans, Kristin J. & van Soest, Arthur, 2010. "Nonresponse and Focal Point Answers to Subjective Probability Questions," IZA Discussion Papers 5272, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
- 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.
- Chateauneuf, Alain & Eichberger, Jürgen & Grant, Simon, 2003. "Choice under Uncertainty with the Best and Worst in Mind: Neo-additive Capacities," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 03-10, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim & Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
- Grant, Simon & Chateauneuf, A. & Eichberger, J., 2002. "Choice under Uncertainty with the Best and Worst in Mind: Neo-additive Capacities," Working Papers 2002-10, Rice University, Department of Economics.
- Gilboa Itzhak & Schmeidler David, 1993.
"Updating Ambiguous Beliefs,"
Journal of Economic Theory,
Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 33-49, February.
- Wakker, Peter & Tversky, Amos, 1993. " An Axiomatization of Cumulative Prospect Theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 147-75, October.
- Gilboa, Itzhak, 1987. "Expected utility with purely subjective non-additive probabilities," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 65-88, February.
- Eichberger, Jurgen & Grant, Simon & Kelsey, David, 2007.
"Updating Choquet beliefs,"
Journal of Mathematical Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 43(7-8), pages 888-899, September.
- Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1979.
"Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
7656, David K. Levine.
- Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-91, March.
- Schmeidler, David, 1989.
"Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity,"
Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-87, May.
- David Schmeidler, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7662, David K. Levine.
- Marciano Siniscalchi, 2006.
"Dynamic Choice Under Ambiguity,"
1430, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Michael D. Hurd, 2009. "Subjective Probabilities in Household Surveys," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 1(1), pages 543-564, 05.
- Colin F. Camerer, 2007. "Neuroeconomics: Using Neuroscience to Make Economic Predictions," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 117(519), pages C26-C42, 03.
- Cohen, M. & Gilboa, I. & Jaffray, J.Y. & Schmeidler, D., 2000. "An experimental study of updating ambiguous beliefs," Risk, Decision and Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(02), pages 123-133, June.
- Cesaltina Pacheco Pires, 2002. "A Rule For Updating Ambiguous Beliefs," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 137-152, September.
- Sarin, Rakesh K & Wakker, Peter, 1992. "A Simple Axiomatization of Nonadditive Expected Utility," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(6), pages 1255-72, November.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Rangan Gupta).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.